Cost is a critical consideration when implementing evidence-based family healthy weight programs (FHWPs). However, real-world implementation cost data are often underreported, and standardized methods for accurate cost collection are lacking. This article synthesizes the implementation costing approaches used across five FHWPs to inform future adopters and implementers by illustrating context-appropriate costing methods and identifying practical considerations for cost data collection and reporting.
Methods:
We descriptively report and compare the implementation strategies and associated cost assessment methods across five projects funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (CORD 3.0) program. CORD 3.0 aimed to package FHWPs for implementation in health care, community, or public health settings. Costing approach information was organized and abstracted using a published checklist.
Findings:
Despite variation in program models and settings, several common costing approaches emerged. All projects used direct measurement methods (e.g., activity-based or micro-costing) and categorized costs consistently (e.g., labor, supplies, space, information technology) to support decision-making and improve comparability. Several projects applied structured frameworks to guide costing efforts and distinguished between fixed, one-time costs (e.g., training development) and variable, recurring costs (e.g., session delivery, supervision). These patterns highlight a balance of methodological consistency and adaptability across diverse contexts.
Conclusions:
This study provides an overview of approaches to assessing FHWP implementation costs within the CDC’s CORD 3.0 initiative. Applying structured frameworks and practical tools, these projects demonstrate how cost assessments can guide strategic planning, reimbursement, and sustainability—laying groundwork for improved cost reporting and integration in future FHWP dissemination and implementation.
FryarCD, CarrollMD, OgdenCL. Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among children and adolescents aged 2–19 years: United States, 1963–1965 through 2015–2016. 2018.
2.
LindbergL, DanielssonP, PerssonM, et al.Association of childhood obesity with risk of early all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A Swedish prospective cohort study. PLoS Med, 2020; 17(3):e1003078.
HuK, StaianoAE. Trends in obesity prevalence among children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 years in the US from 2011 to 2020. JAMA Pediatr, 2022; 176(10):1037–1039.
5.
HamplSE, HassinkSG, SkinnerAC, et al.Clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and treatment of children and adolescents with obesity. Pediatrics, 2023; 151(2):e2022060640.
O’ConnorEA, EvansCV, BurdaBU, et al.Screening for obesity and intervention for weight management in children and adolescents: Evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 2017; 317(23):2427–2444.
8.
GrossmanDC, Bibbins-DomingoK, CurrySJ, et al.; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for obesity in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 2017; 317(23):2417–2426.
9.
BlanckHM, HackerK, PetersenR. Setting the stage for reimbursable pediatric healthy weight programs. Childhood Obesity, 2021; 17(S1):S-1–S-2.
Children’s Hospital Association. 2013 survey findings of children’s hospitals obesity services: Children’s Hospital Association. Overland Park, KS; 2014.
12.
WilfleyDE, StaianoAE, AltmanM, et al.; Improving Access and Systems of Care for Evidence-Based Childhood Obesity Treatment Conference Workgroup. Improving access and systems of care for evidence‐based childhood obesity treatment: Conference key findings and next steps. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2017; 25(1):16–29.
KelleherE, HarringtonJM, ShielyF, et al.Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a community-based, multidisciplinary, family-focused childhood weight management programme in Ireland: A qualitative study. BMJ Open, 2017; 7(8):e016459.
15.
NeshterukCD, SkinnerAC, CountsJ, et al.Translating knowledge into action for child obesity treatment in partnership with Parks and Recreation: Study protocol for a hybrid type II trial. Implementation Sci, 2023; 18(1):1–12.
16.
SkeltonJ, BeechB. Attrition in paediatric weight management: A review of the literature and new directions. Obes Rev, 2011; 12(5):e273–e281.
17.
GortmakerSL, LongMW, ReschSC, et al.Cost effectiveness of childhood obesity interventions: Evidence and methods for CHOICES. Am J Prev Med, 2015; 49(1):102–111.
18.
GortmakerSL, WangYC, LongMW, et al.Three interventions that reduce childhood obesity are projected to save more than they cost to implement. Health Aff (Millwood), 2015; 34(11):1932–1939.
19.
QuattrinT, CaoY, PaluchRA, et al.Cost-effectiveness of family-based obesity treatment. Pediatrics, 2017; 140(3):e20162755.
20.
SharifiM, FiechtnerLG, BarrettJL, et al.Cost‐effectiveness of a primary care‐based Healthy Weight Clinic compared with usual care. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2024; 32(9):1734–1744.
21.
SharifiM, FranzC, HoranCM, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a clinical childhood obesity intervention. Pediatrics, 2017; 140(5):e20162998.
22.
EismanAB, KilbourneAM, DoppAR, et al.Economic evaluation in implementation science: Making the business case for implementation strategies. Psychiatry Res, 2020; 283:112433.
23.
FrewE. Economic evaluation of childhood obesity interventions: Reflections and suggestions. Pharmacoeconomics, 2016; 34(8):733–740.
24.
ValeL, ThomasR, MacLennanG, et al.Systematic review of economic evaluations and cost analyses of guideline implementation strategies. Eur J Health Econ, 2007; 8(2):111–121.
25.
RobertsSLE, HealeyA, SevdalisN. Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review. Implement Sci, 2019; 14(1):72.
26.
ReevesP, EdmundsK, SearlesA, et al.Economic evaluations of public health implementation-interventions: A systematic review and guideline for practice. Public Health, 2019; 169:101–113.
27.
MichaudTL, PereiraE, PorterG, et al.Scoping review of costs of implementation strategies in community, public health and healthcare settings. BMJ Open, 2022; 12(6):e060785.
28.
YoonJ. Including Economic Evaluations in Implementation Science: Springer; 2020.
29.
GoldHT, McDermottC, HoomansT, et al.Cost data in implementation science: Categories and approaches to costing. Implement Sci, 2022; 17(1):11.
30.
WagnerTH, YoonJ, JacobsJC, et al.Estimating costs of an implementation intervention. Med Decis Making, 2020; 40(8):959–967.
31.
PowellBJ, FernandezME, WilliamsNJ, et al.Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: A research agenda. Front Public Health, 2019; 7:3.
HillJL, HeelanKA, BarteeR, et al.A type III hybrid effectiveness–implementation pilot trial testing dissemination and implementation strategies for a pediatric weight management intervention: The Nebraska childhood obesity research demonstration project. Childhood Obesity, 2021; 17(S1):S-70–S-78.
35.
FiechtnerL, CastroI, AyalaSG, et al.Design and approach of the healthy weight clinic pediatric weight management intervention package and implementation: Massachusetts-CORD 3.0. Childhood Obesity, 2021; 17(S1):S-48–S-54.
36.
JelalianE, EvansW, DarlingKE, et al.Protocol for the Rhode Island CORD 3.0 study: Adapting, testing, and packaging the JOIN for ME family-based childhood obesity program in low-income communities. Childhood Obesity, 2021; 17(S1):S-11–S-21.
37.
RobinsonTN, MathesonD, HaydelKF, et al.Packaging and scaling the Stanford Pediatric Weight Control Program: A family-based, group, behavioral weight management program for children with obesity and their families: Background, rationale, and design of the Stanford CORD 3.0 project. Childhood Obesity, 2021; 17(S1):S-86–S-92.
38.
WilfleyDE, FowlerLA, HamplSE, et al.; The MO-CORD Study Group. Implementation of a scalable family-based behavioral treatment for childhood obesity delivered through primary care clinics: Description of the Missouri Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration study protocol. Childhood Obesity, 2021; 17(S1):S-39–S-47.
39.
MoullinJC, DicksonKS, StadnickNA, et al.Systematic review of the Exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci, 2019; 14(1):1.
40.
ProctorEK, PowellBJ, McMillenJC. Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci, 2013; 8(1):139.
41.
SmithJD, LiDH, RaffertyMR. The implementation research logic model: A method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implementation Sci, 2020; 15(1):1–12.
42.
CidavZ, MandellD, PyneJ, et al.A pragmatic method for costing implementation strategies using time-driven activity-based costing. Implementation Sci, 2020; 15(1):1–15.
43.
FlynnPM, BroomeKM, Beaston-BlaakmanA, et al.Treatment Cost Analysis Tool (TCAT) for estimating costs of outpatient treatment services. Drug Alcohol Depend, 2009; 100(1–2):47–53.
44.
ShepardDS, ZengW, StricklerGK, et al.The Brief Treatment Cost Analysis Tool (TCAT-Lite) for substance abuse treatment: Reliability and application. Alcohol Treat Q, 2012; 30(4):377–396.
45.
SaldanaL, ChamberlainP, BradfordWD, et al.The cost of implementing new strategies (COINS): A method for mapping implementation resources using the stages of implementation completion. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2014; 39:177–182.
46.
MuennigP, BounthavongM. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health: a practical approach: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
47.
HeelanKA, BarteeRT, NihiserA, et al.Healthier school environment leads to decreases in childhood obesity: The Kearney Nebraska story. Child Obes, 2015; 11(5):600–607.
48.
MichaudTL, HillJL, HeelanKA, et al.Understanding implementation costs of a pediatric weight management intervention: An economic evaluation protocol. Implement Sci Commun, 2022; 3(1):37.
49.
TaverasEM, MarshallR, SharifiM, et al.Comparative effectiveness of clinical-community childhood obesity interventions: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr, 2017; 171(8):e171325–e171325.
50.
TaverasEM, PerkinsM, AnandS, et al.Clinical effectiveness of the massachusetts childhood obesity research demonstration initiative among low‐income children. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2017; 25(7):1159–1166.
51.
FiechtnerL, PerkinsM, BiggsV, et al.Comparative effectiveness of clinical and community-based approaches to healthy weight. Pediatrics, 2021; 148(4):e2021050405.
52.
RuggieroCF, FrenchDD, SmithJD, et al.Development and application of a cost tool for a primary care‐based intensive health behaviour and lifestyle treatment. Pediatr Obes, 2025:e70028.
53.
DarlingKE, HayesJF, EvansEW, et al.Engaging stakeholders to adapt an evidence-based family healthy weight program. Transl Behav Med, 2023; 13(7):423–431.
54.
RitchieMJ, DollarKM, KearneyLK, et al.Responding to needs of clinical operations partners: Transferring implementation facilitation knowledge and skills. Psychiatr Serv, 2014; 65(2):141–143.
55.
BanduraA. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1997.
56.
RobinsonTN. Behavioural treatment of childhood and adolescent obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, 1999; 23 (Suppl 2),(Suppl 2):S52–S57.
57.
RobinsonTN. A biodesign approach to designing, packaging, and scaling a pediatric weight management program: The Stanford CORD 3.0 Project. Child Obes, 2021; 17(S1):S79–S85.
58.
MummahSA, RobinsonTN, KingAC, et al.IDEAS (integrate, design, assess, and share): A framework and toolkit of strategies for the development of more effective digital interventions to change health behavior. J Med Internet Res, 2016; 18(12):e317.
59.
YockPG, ZeniosS, MakowerJ, et al.Biodesign: The process of innovating medical technologies. Second edition ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
60.
FowlerLA, HamplSE, Dreyer GilletteML, et al.; The MO-CORD Study Group. Translating family-based behavioral treatment for childhood obesity into a user-friendly digital package for delivery to low-income families through primary care partnerships: The MO-CORD study. Childhood Obesity, 2021; 17(S1):S-30–S-38.
MichaudTL, YouW, EstabrooksPA, et al.Cost and cost-effectiveness of the ‘Stand and Move at Work’ multicomponent intervention to reduce workplace sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk. Scand J Work Environ Health, 2022; 48(5):399–409.
65.
HarrisA, JordanN, CarrollAJ, et al.A budget impact analysis of cost to implement a whole child health focused, family-based intervention in primary care for children with elevated BMI. Implement Sci Commun, 2023; 4(1):59.
66.
JordanN, GrahamAK, BerkelC, et al.Costs of preparing to implement a family-based intervention to prevent pediatric obesity in primary care: A budget impact analysis. Prev Sci, 2019; 20(5):655–664.
67.
SohnH, TuckerA, FergusonO, et al.Costing the implementation of public health interventions in resource-limited settings: A conceptual framework. Implementation Sci, 2020; 15(1):1–8.
68.
LehmanVE, SiegelJE, ChiangEN. The price of practice change: Assessing the cost of integrating research findings into clinical practice. Med Care, 2023; 61(10):675–680.
69.
DamschroderLJ, ReardonCM, AuYoungM, et al.Implementation findings from a hybrid III implementation-effectiveness trial of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Implement Sci, 2017; 12(1):94.
70.
DoppAR, MundeyP, BeasleyLO, et al.Mixed-method approaches to strengthen economic evaluations in implementation research. Implement Sci, 2019; 14(1):2.
71.
O’LearyMC, Hassmiller LichK, FrerichsL, et al.Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science. Implementation Sci, 2022; 17(1):27.
72.
MichaudTL, WilsonK, SilvaF, et al.Costing a population health management approach for participant recruitment to a diabetes prevention study. Transl Behav Med, 2021; 11(10):1864–1874.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
