ArticleEvaluation and program planning2025
Advancing methods for program evaluation in substance use by strengthening the application of epidemiology, economic evaluation, and implementation science: Reflections on the opportunities for synergy.
Article in Evaluation and program planning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Program evaluation is necessary to assess the success of evidence-based programs in real-world, non-trial settings. In its most basic form, it involves understanding processes that impact the health and well-being of individuals and communities. Increasingly, robust program evaluations are integrating approaches from implementation science and economic evaluation to strengthen assessment, achievement, and sustainment of the intended impacts of evidence-based programs, while traditionally employing epidemiological methods to assess outcomes. Epidemiology, economic evaluation, and implementation science operate in overlapping yet siloed arenas, which can make it challenging for program evaluators to effectively engage all three disciplines. Furthermore, given their overlap, practitioners in these disciplines must understand differences in their purpose and lexicon to foster synergies. We use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Evaluation Framework and an example from substance use prevention to reflect on specific concepts and terminology within each of these disciplines and how distinctions impact the ability of multidisciplinary teams to collaborate on evaluations. The implications apply to those designing, testing, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based programs-all of whom have the opportunity to consider and strengthen these elements when developing processes and measuring impact. The substance use prevention field needs to better understand how these disciplines can complement one another to enrich process, outcome, and impact evaluations, given the complexities of substance use behaviors and evidence-based programs to address them. With this synergy, clearer communication of findings from the different components can be achieved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.