Table 5 Quality assessment results of economic studies included in the systematic review
Question no. | CASP economic evaluation checklist questionsab | Response (√, x, NC or NA) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies (author and year) | ||||
Shumaker et al. (2002) [26] | Chang et al. (2003) [27] | Russell et al. (2013) [11] | ||
1 | Was a well-defined question posed? | √ | √ | √ |
2 | Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given? | NA | NA | √ |
3 | Does the paper provide evidence that the programme would be effective (i.e. would the programme do more good than harm)? | √ | √ | √ |
4 | Were the effects of the intervention identified, measured and valued appropriately? | NA | NA | √ |
5a | Were all important and relevant resources required and health outcome costs for each alternative identified? | NC | NC | √ |
5b | Were all important and relevant resources required and health outcome costs for each alternative measured in appropriate units? | √ | √ | √ |
5c | Were all important and relevant resources required and health outcome costs for each alternative valued credibly? | √ | NC | √ |
6 | Were costs and consequences adjusted for different times at which they occurred (discounting)? | x | x | √ |
7 | What were the results of the evaluation? | √ | √ | √ |
8 | Was an incremental analysis of the consequences and cost of alternatives performed? | NA | NA | √ |
9 | Was an adequate sensitivity analysis performed? | √ | x | √ |
10 | Is the programme likely to be equally effective in your context or setting? | √ | √ | √ |
11 | Are the costs translatable to your setting? | x | x | √ |
12 | Is it worth doing in your setting? | √ | √ | √ |
Score, ratioâ„¢ (%) | 8/11 (73%) | 6/11 (55%) | 14/14 (100%) | |