MPF1310: Assessment Instructions and Requirements

Purpose of This Assignment

The primary purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate your ability to interpret and critically appraise published economic evaluations. At the master’s level, there is a stronger emphasis on research skills both conducting research and critically reading original studies.

Through this assignment, you will demonstrate your ability to:

• Interpret health economics evidence

• Identify strengths and weaknesses of economic evaluations

• Reflect on the generalisability of published findings

• Consider implications for decision-makers

• Analyse and critically evaluate research evidence

• Apply critical thinking skills to economic evaluation literature

Due Date

• Submission Deadline: 6:00 PM, Sunday, 31st August 2025

Assignment Questions

You must choose one of the following economic evaluation articles for analysis:

Option 1

Harris A. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Telehealth-Delivered Exercise and Dietary Weight Loss Programs for Knee Osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2023.

Option 2

Williams EV. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of early detection and bundled treatment of postpartum hemorrhage alongside the E-MOTIVE trial. Nat Med. 2024.

Option 3

Tafazzoli A. et al. The Potential Value-Based Price of a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Genomic Blood Test. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022.

QUESTION 1 

Critical Appraisal Using the Drummond Checklist

Assess the quality of your selected economic evaluation using the Drummond checklist. For each of the 10 main criteria, you must:

• Begin your answer with: Yes / No / Mixed / Cannot tell

• Provide brief justification using direct evidence from the article

You are NOT required to answer every sub-question, as not all sub-points may apply. They are only prompts to help you think.

Your evaluation must be specific, evidence-based, and concise.

Main Drummond Checklist Criteria

1. Was a well-defined question posed in an answerable form?

2. Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given?

3. Was the effectiveness of the programmes or services established?

4. Were all important and relevant costs and consequences identified?

5. Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate units?

6. Were costs and consequences valued credibly?

7. Were they adjusted for differential timing (discounting)?

8. Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences performed?

9. Was uncertainty adequately characterized?

10. Did the presentation and discussion include all issues of concern to users?

 

QUESTION 2 

Generalisability

Critically discuss how generalisable the study findings are:

• To different health systems

• To varied populations

• To different delivery settings

• Considering context, demographics, cost structures, etc.

Justify clearly using theory and article-specific evidence.

QUESTION 3

Decision-Maker Perspective

Discuss:

1. Who the likely funding decision-maker(s) are, such as:

   • Government health departments

   • Insurers

   • Hospital administrators

   • National screening bodies

   • Public health agencies

2. What other considerations they would examine, beyond economic evidence:

   • Budget constraints

   • Feasibility and capacity

   • Ethical and equity issues

   • Implementation barriers

   • Stakeholder acceptability

   • Long-term sustainability

3. Whether the intervention should be funded, based on:

   • Study outcomes

   • Cost-effectiveness

   • Uncertainty

   • Feasibility in real-world settings

   • Broader policy priorities

Provide a clear recommendation supported by evidence.

Academic Integrity and AI Use

• The assignment must comply with the UoM Student Academic Integrity Policy (MPF1310)

• Generative AI is strictly prohibited for completing this assessment

• Any use of AI tools will be treated as academic misconduct

• You must independently demonstrate understanding and skill development

Extensions

Extensions may be approved for eligible circumstances such as:

• Health issues

• Caring responsibilities

• Bereavement

• Other circumstances specified in the MSPGH policy

Procedure:

• Up to 3 business days:

  • No documentation required, but reason must be eligible

  • Submit request before the deadline via the Extension Request Form

• 4–10 business days:

  • Documentation required

  • Submit before the deadline

• Only one extension per assessment

• Further time requires a Special Consideration application

Summary of Assessment Requirements

This assessment requires students to interpret and critically appraise a published economic evaluation. The core purpose is to demonstrate advanced research and analytical skills expected at the master’s level. Students must choose one of the three provided economic evaluation articles and answer three main questions, each targeting a different competency.

Key Requirements

1. Critical Appraisal Using the Drummond Checklist 

Students must evaluate the selected economic evaluation study using all 10 main Drummond criteria, and for each:

• Begin with a judgement: Yes, No, Mixed, Cannot tell

• Provide specific justification from the article

• Use concise, evidence-based reasoning

This section assesses your ability to:

• Understand the structure of an economic evaluation

• Identify strengths, limitations, and methodological gaps

• Analyse the credibility and transparency of cost, outcome, and uncertainty measures

2. Generalisability Analysis (Question 2)

Students must evaluate how applicable the study findings are to:

• Other populations

• Different health systems

• Diverse demographic and policy contexts

• Different organisational or delivery settings

The response should be theory-driven and supported by evidence from the selected study.

3. Decision-Maker Perspective (Question 3)

Students must identify and discuss:

• Likely decision-makers (e.g., government, insurers, hospitals)

• Factors that inform funding decisions beyond economic results (ethics, feasibility, constraints)

• Whether the intervention should be funded, based on multiple forms of evidence

This requires applying economic reasoning to real-world policy decisions.

Other Important Requirements

• Assignment length: 1500 words (+/-10%)

• Formatting: Times New Roman, 12pt, double spaced

• Word file/PDF submission via Turnitin

• Student ID on every page

• Strict adherence to UoM Academic Integrity Policy

• Generative AI usage is prohibited for writing the assignment

• One extension permitted under the MSPGH extension policy

Get This Sample for Reference 

Looking for clarity on how to structure your assignment or understand the expected academic approach? You can download the sample solution available on this page to guide your research and improve your understanding. This file is meant strictly for learning and reference purposes to help you study smarter and gain confidence in your topic.

Important: Submitting the sample solution as your own work may result in plagiarism penalties. Every university uses advanced plagiarism detection systems, and reusing content can put your academic record at risk. Always use sample files responsibly.

If you need a custom-written, plagiarism-free assignment tailored to your topic, instructions, and marking rubric, our academic writers are ready to help. Your fresh solution will be:

• Written by qualified subject experts

• 100% original and checked through plagiarism tools

• Structured exactly as per your university guidelines

• Delivered on time with reliable support

• Backed by proofreading and quality assurance

Get the advantage of a professionally crafted solution without risking your academic integrity.

Take the Next Step

[Download Sample Solution]       [Order Fresh Assignment]