10.2. Were the results compared with those of others who have investigated the same question? If so, were allowances made for potential differences in study methodology? 10.3. Did the study discuss the generalisability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? 10.4. Did the study allude to, or take account of, other important factors in the choice or decision under consideration (e.g. distribution of costs and consequences, or relevant ethical issues)? 10.5. Did the study discuss issues of implementation, such as the feasibility of adopting the programme given existing financial or other constraints, ‘preferred’ and whether any freed resources could be redeployed to other worthwhile programmes? Annex 3 Evidence of Cost-effectiveness Grading Based upon the appraisal strategy above a subjective judgement of the overall balance of economic evidence was made by the economic evidence sub-group and the following traffic light system of grading was used. Green I Green II Amber I Amber II Red I Red II Large Small Fair quality Fair quality Poor No frequency frequency economic evidence quality of good of good however, evidence quality quality showing showing showing economic economic mixed evidence of was not showing showing as appraised by as as as as Drummond appraised appraised appraised appraised et al’s by by by by 2005 Drummond Drummond Drummond Drummond Checklist et al’s et al’s et al’s et al’s for a sound 2005 Checklist 2005 2005 economic Checklist for a sound Checklist Checklist evaluation for a sound economic for a sound for a sound economic evaluation economic economic evaluation evaluation evaluation
10.2. Were the results compared with those of others who have investigated the same question? If so, were allowances made for potential differences in study methodology? 10.3. Did the study discuss the generalisability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? 10.4. Did the study allude to, or take account of, other important factors in the choice or decision under consideration (e.g. distribution of costs and consequences, or relevant ethical issues)? 10.5. Did the study discuss issues of implementation, such as the feasibility of adopting the ‘preferred’ programme given existing financial or other constraints, and whether any freed resources could be redeployed to other worthwhile programmes? Annex 3 Evidence of Cost-effectiveness Grading Based upon the appraisal strategy above a subjective judgement of the overall balance of economic evidence was made by the economic evidence sub-group and the following traffic light system of grading was used. Green I Green II Amber I Amber II Red I Red II Large frequency of good quality economic showing as appraised by Drummond et al’s 2005 Checklist for a sound economic evaluation Small frequency of good quality economic showing as appraised by Drummond et al’s 2005 Checklist for a sound economic evaluation Fair quality economic showing as appraised by Drummond et al’s 2005 Checklist for a sound economic evaluation Fair quality evidence however, showing mixed evidence of as appraised by Drummond et al’s 2005 Checklist for a sound economic evaluation Poor quality evidence showing was not as appraised by Drummond et al’s Checklist for a sound economic evaluation No
Initiatie%20assessment%20report%20MHFA%20Final.docx