Health Technology
Assessment Task
2:
Appraising Health Technology to Inform
Government Decision-Making
There are following
technology sets for this assessment; please complete the assignment for the
technology:
Adjustable Gastric
Banding and Conventional Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes
Your Assignment:
Your task is to
critically appraise the clinical and economic evidence and prepare a report for
Government decision-makers explaining why, on the basis of this evidence, that
technology should or should not be funded in Australia.
For each technology, you have been provided
with the publication (a paper) of a clinical trial and an economic evaluation.
Your role is to undertake a critical appraisal of these papers using a suitable
appraisal tool/checklist and prepare a report for Government decision-makers
that include key information about the technology and your recommendation about
whether the technology should be funded in the Australian setting.
Note that for each of these technologies there
may be other published studies, technology assessment reports from MSAC, PBAC
or from HTA bodies internationally (for example NICE) that are relevant to your
assessment and the information you provide to Government. You may wish to refer
to these and other publications in your review but the publications you have
been provided should be your primary focus.
What to Cover in
Your Report:
Your report should be
in three parts and include a minimum of the following:
1. An abstract that summarizes
the technology, the comparator, the key findings of the clinical trial and
economic evaluations, the quality of the clinical and economic evidence,
potential implications for policy and practice, and your recommendation. The
abstract should not exceed 500 words.
2. A completed
appraisal checklist(s) for the two provided studies. You should choose the
appraisal checklist(s) that you feel is most appropriate for the studies being
reviewed. The completed checklists will not contribute to the overall word
count of your report.
3. A main report that
addresses the following issues:
• The context for the health technology,
including a description of the health technology, the appropriate comparator,
the population and circumstances of use.
• The nature of the clinical evidence for
the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the new technology, and your
conclusions regarding the quality of this evidence.
• The nature of the economic evaluation of
the new technology, including:
Ø the
evaluation type used and modelling approach (if applicable).
Ø A
summary of the outcome measures in the clinical evidence and how they are
translated in the economic evidence.
Ø A
summary of the types of resource use that were included in the economic
evaluation, and an assessment of whether these were appropriate.
Ø Key
sources of uncertainty and assumptions, and what impact these may have on the
results and interpretation.
Ø The
findings in relation to cost-effectiveness of the technology, and your
conclusions regarding this evidence
Ø
•
An assessment of the applicability of
the evidence to the Australian context.
•
Potential impacts on the Australian
health budget and costs to consumers. This should be a qualitative discussion
only (there is no requirement to estimate patient numbers or costs for the
Australian health care system).
• Your recommendation about whether the
technology should be funded in the Australian setting, and why you have made
this recommendation.
• A
clear reference list of resources you have used, including the papers provided.
The body of your report
(excluding the abstract, completed checklist(s) and reference list) should not
exceed 1,200 words.
The following criteria
will be applied in grading your assignments:
Requirement
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Satisfactory
|
Poor
|
A
clear abstract that contains all required elements
|
||||
Selection
of appropriate critical appraisal checklist(s)
|
||||
Concise
and clear (for a non expert) description of the technology
|
||||
Evidence
of understanding of the decision making context
|
||||
Evidence
of assessment of the quality of the clinical evidence
|
||||
Evidence
of understanding of the key components required for an economic evaluation
|
||||
Evidence
of assessment of the nature and quality of the economic evaluation
|
||||
Evidence
of understanding of key sources of uncertainty related to the technology and
the evaluation
|
||||
Evidence
of understanding applicability of the evidence to the Australian context
|
||||
Discussion
of the policy and funding implications for the Australian health system
|
||||
A
recommendation that is clearly justified by your assessment
|
||||
Clarity
of written expression and presentation
|
HD:
Excellent on 8 criteria, Good on at least 2 and satisfactory on all others
D:
Excellent on at least 5 criteria, Good on at least 4 and Satisfactory on all
others,
C:
Excellent on at least 2 criteria, Good on at least 7, Satisfactory on All
others
P:
Good or Satisfactory on all criteria OR
Poor on no more than 3 criteria and
Good/Excellent on at least 3
Checklists are as
follows:
Use suitable checklist
for your assignment:
- CHEERS: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109830151300065X?via%3Dihub
- Kmet: https://www.ihe.ca/publications/standard-quality-assessment-criteria-for-evaluating-primary-research-papers-from-a-variety-of-fields
Comments
Post a Comment