Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment tool and average score obtained for each criterion by the included 9 studies

From: Economic evaluations of ergonomic interventions preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of organizational-level interventions

Purpose of the study and nature of intervention

Average score for each criterion

1. Were the objective and economic perspective of the evaluation clearly and explicitly stated?

2.0 /2

2. Were workers’ exposure to intervention and involvement into intervention documented and appropriate?

0.9 /2

3. Were changes implemented as intended?

1.1 /2

Study design and evaluation of intervention effectiveness

 

4. Did the study include a control group?

0.6 /2

5. Were study participants randomly assigned to the control or intervention groups? If study participants were not randomly assigned, were workers’ baseline characteristics measured?

0.9 /2

6. Were outcome indicators measured before and after the intervention?

2.0 /2

7. Were contextual factors and co-interventions that could influence the results taken into account in the analysis or in the interpretation of the results?

0.8 /2

8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for measuring the effectiveness of the intervention?

1.1 /2

9. Were study participants data paired before and after intervention?

0.8 /2

10. Was the length of follow-up after the end of implementation of the intervention appropriate or justified by the authors?

1.4 /2

Features specific to economic evaluation

 

11. Did the study involve a comparison of competing alternatives and was there a comprehensive description of these alternatives?

0.8 /2

12. Were all important and relevant costs and outcomes for each alternative identified and measured in appropriate physical units, given the evaluation perspective?

1.7 /2

13. Was the method used for cost assessment explicitly stated and justified?

1.4 /2

14. Was an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed?

0.8 /2

15. Were all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis or presented with confidence intervals?

0.6 /2

16. Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern?

1.4 /2

17. Did the study discuss the generalizability of the results to other settings and populations?

0.2 /2

18. Were costs and outcomes that occur in the future discounted to their present value?

0.2 /2

  1. Average score calculated as the average of the scores obtained by the 9 included studies for each criterion (if all studies get a score of 2 for criterion 1, then the average score of this criterion is 2). Studies could get a score of 0 or 1 for criterion 18. The average score for this criterion was multiplied by 2 in Table 1 to be comparable to the other criteria
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us