Table 2 CHEC Quality Assessment Checklist
Title | Coulton et al., (2015) [62] | Johnston et al., (2018) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Silver Song Club | Community of Voices | ||
1 | Is the study population clearly described? | ✓ | ✓ |
2 | Are competing alternatives clearly described? | ✓ | ✓ |
3 | Is a well-defined research question posed in an answerable form? | ✓ | ✓ |
4 | Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective? | ✓ | ✓ |
5 | Is the chosen time horizon appropriate to include relevant costs and consequences? | ✓ | ✓ |
6 | Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate? | ✓ | ✓ |
7 | Are all important and relevant costs for each alternative identified? | ✓ | ✓ |
8 | Are all costs measured appropriately in physical units? | ✓ | ✓ |
9 | Are costs valued appropriately? | ✓ | ✓ |
10 | Are all important and relevant outcomes for each alternative identified? | ✓ | ✓ |
11 | Are all outcomes measured appropriately? | ✓ | ✓ |
12 | Are outcomes valued appropriately? | ✓ | ✓ |
13 | Is an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed? | ✓ | xa |
14 | Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately? | ✓ | ✓ |
15 | Are all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis? | ✓ | ✓ |
16 | Do the conclusions follow from the data reported? | ✓ | ✓ |
17 | Does the study discuss the generalizability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? | ✓ | ✓ |
18 | Does the article indicate that there is no potential conflict of interest of study researcher(s) and funder(s)? | ✓ | ✓ |
19 | Are ethical and distributional issues discussed appropriately? | ✓ | ✓ |