The final assignment consists of a case study in which you are expected to demonstrate critical understanding of all the aspects of economic evaluation design and application covered in all the topics in this course unit.
You may select ONE of the two economic evaluations listed on the discussion board.
The structure of your assignment
1. Present a summary of why the economic evaluation is needed. [10%]
2. Apply the NHS EED (nhs economic evaluation database)guidelines to the published economic evaluation. [70%]
3. Make recommendations for future research required to allow this research to be implemented in practice. [20%]
4. References: any supporting statements should be appropriately referenced
You will be expected to demonstrate both factual knowledge and skills related to assessment of economic evaluation. You should be able to justify any comment that you make.
You do not need to use the same structure and headings as the NHS EED handbook. Remember that the guidelines are just that, guidance on how to critically appraise and summarise a published paper. The NHS EED guidelines help you to ensure you consider the key aspects of a study to appraise and discuss.
You do not need to use the table format, or all the headings in the guidelines. But, you do need to make sure that it is clear that all aspects have been covered. Please remember, that it is just as important to report what data or information is missing, as it is to appraise the data presented.
If you do use the table format, then please remember that it will be included in the word count. Only numerical tables will be excluded (that is, tables summarising numbers). Tables of text will be included.
Total 3000 wordsDocument Preview:
Access the most recent version at doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.109.069617 The British Journal of Psychiatry 2010 196: 319-325 Aartjan Beekman and Harm van Marwijk Petronella van’t Veer-Tazelaar, Filip Smit, Hein van Hout, Patricia van Oppen, Henriette van der Horst, depression and anxiety in late life: randomised trial Cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention to prevent References http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/196/4/319#otherarticles Article cited in: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/196/4/319#References This article cites 14 articles, 5 of which can be accessed free at: permissions Reprints/write to email@example.com To obtain reprints or permission to reproduce material from this paper, please to this article at You can respond http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/eletter-submit/196/4/319 service Email alerting the top right corner of the article or click here Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article -sign up in the box at from Downloaded Published by The Royal College of Psychiatrists bjp.rcpsych.org on May 8, 2011 http://bjp.rcpsych.org/subscriptions/To subscribe to The British Journal of Psychiatry go to:
Preventing depression and anxiety in later life is important from both a public health and an economic point of view.1–3 The type of trial described in this paper (comparing stepped care with usual care) differs from conventional stepped care projects (which aim at cost reduction), since the stepped care model is expected to be more expensive even though it is designed to deliver the ‘extra’ services as efficiently as possible. In an earlier study it was demonstrated that the intervention was successful in reducing the incidence of anxiety and depression by 50%.4 However, the substantial involvement of nursing staff makes the cost-effectiveness of such an intervention debatable. Method Participants and procedures The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomised prevention trial in The Netherlands,…