The Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument

Assignment Task

Economic evaluation

Choose a published evaluation of the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit or cost-utility of a health intervention that interests you.

In making your selection, bear in mind the definition of economic evaluation as a comparison of two or more options in terms of their costs and their benefits. Do not pick a review article, a commentary or a methodological article.

A google search will be more than adequate. I suggest you choose an article published in a public health or medical journal rather than an economics journal. And please obtain a pdf copy of your article that you can send to me

Critically appraise the evaluation

Use Drummond’s ten-step checklist to structure your critical appraisal of the article. A copy of the checklist is attached to this document, or it can be found here The Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes1 Please use only this ten-question version.

Feel free to use the 10 questions as section headings to structure your review. The sub-questions should just be used as prompts to what to consider under each section heading.

Score the article formally using the QHES

The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument is closely related to Drummond’s ten-step checklist but it also allows you to score the quality of the study more formally. There are sixteen questions that you answer yes/ no according to whether you think the article meets the criteria.

Questions

1. Was the study objective presented in a clear, specific, and measurable manner?

2. Were the perspective of the analysis (societal, third-party payer, etc.) and reasons for its selection stated?

3. Were variable estimates used in the analysis from the best available source (i.e., randomized control trial - best, expert opinion - worst)?

4. If estimates came from a subgroup analysis, were the groups prespecified at the beginning of the study?

5. Was uncertainty handled by (1) statistical analysis to address random events, (2) sensitivity analysis to cover a range of assumptions?

6. Was incremental analysis performed between alternatives for resources and costs?

7. Was the methodology for data abstraction (including the value of health states and other benefits) stated?

8. Did the analytic horizon allow time for all relevant and important outcomes? Were benefits and costs that went beyond 1 year discounted (3% to 5%) and the justification given for the discount rate?

9. Was the measurement of costs appropriate and the methodology for the estimation of quantities and unit costs clearly described?

10. Were the primary outcome measure(s) for the economic evaluation clearly stated and did they 6 include the major short-term was justification given for the measures/scales used?

11. Were the health outcomes measures/scales valid and reliable? If previously tested valid and reliable measures were not available, was justification given for the measures/scales used?

12. Were the economic model (including structure), study methods and analysis, and the components of the numerator and denominator displayed in a clear, transparent manner?

13. Were the choice of economic model, main assumptions, and limitations of the study stated and justified?

14. Did the author(s) explicitly discuss the direction and magnitude of potential biases?

15. Were the conclusions/recommendations of the study justified and based on the study results?

16. Was there a statement disclosing the source of funding for the study?

This Health has been solved by our PHD Experts at My Uni Paper.