Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
PUBH 430 – Health Economics Assignment - 2 Total marks = 100 (10%) (Economic evaluation evidence for Decision Making) Instructions for preparing and submitting the assignment 1. The assignment
PUBH 430 – Health Economics
Assignment - 2
Total marks = 100 (10%)
(Economic evaluation evidence for Decision Making)
Instructions for preparing and submitting the assignment
1. The assignment must be submitted by midnight of Monday 25th December, 2017.
2. The title page of the assignment should include students’ ID number, title of the assignment, submission date and word count.
3. Please do not write your name anywhere in the assignment, including the title page
4. There is no fixed word limit, however, it should NOT exceed 2,500 words in length.
5. All assignments must be submitted via the SafeAssign on the Blackboard
6. You are given a case study based on an economic evaluation of alternative treatment options in patients with chronic low back pain. You are provided with a published economic evaluation study by van der Roer et al. (2008) from the literature, which investigated the cost-effectiveness of two alternative options. Your task is to answer a number of questions that are stipulated in the assignment. It can be noted that, a companion paper which provides more details on the original study by Roer et al. (2008), is also attached.
7. While preparing assignments students should be aware of the fact that any type of plagiarism will not be accepted at all, and any evidence of plagiarism will be dealt with strictly in line with the Qatar University guidelines.
8. The grading of the assignment will be based on criteria set out in the course syllabus, However, the weighting of the marks will be as follows:
Criteria
Weighting
Identifying appropriate points and literature related to the case study while answering the question
30%
Describe relevant points clearly in line with concepts and principles of economic evaluation taught
30%
Correct analysis and originality while critically appraising the evidence from the published study
30%
Overall presentation – coherent arguments and clear structure while preparing summary evidence from the published study
10%
9. Please use 12 points of Time New Roman or Calibri font and 1.5 lines space in the paragraph.
Assignment -2
Economic evaluation of interventions treating patients with low back pain
Low back pain is a common problem and although not seriously affects individual’s health, it causes a great deal of discomfort and brings a substantial financial burden to our society. The major social and economic loss due to the low back pain leads to policy makers determining the most cost-effectiveness interventions for these patients. A variety of physiotherapeutic interventions was available at the time for low back pain patients, but their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were not properly investigated. Evidence from the literature suggests that exercise therapy, behavioral therapy and back school programs were the most promising interventions (Hayden et al., 2005; Haymans et al., 2004).
Van der Roer et al. (2004, 2008) conducted an economic evaluation of an Intensive Group training protocol compared with usual car physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
References
1.van der Roer et al. (2008):Economic Evaluation of an Intensive Group Training
Protocol Compared With Usual Care Physiotherapy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain, Spine 33(4)
2. van der Roer et al. (2004):Economic Evaluation of an Intensive Group Training
Protocol Compared With Usual Care Physiotherapy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 4:45
Questions
Q-1: Provide a brief literature review of published studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions for treating patients with low back pain in a primary care setting (15 marks)
Q- 2: Provide a rationale for the economic evaluation study conducted by van der Roer et al. (2008) (15 marks)
Q- 3: Identify and describe ‘PICO’ terms in the economic evaluation study conducted by van der Roer et al (2008) (15 marks)
Q-4: Identify and describe the rationale of the economic evaluation perspective taken in the van der Roer et al. (2008) study (10 marks)
Q-5: Identify the healthcare resources used for the economic evaluation and describe how these resources are costed (15 marks)
Q-6: Provide the main cost-effectiveness results observed in the published study (15 marks)
Q-7: Identify main limitations found by van der Roer at al. (2008) in their cost-effectiveness study (15 marks)
- @
- 13 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $40.00. See answer's preview
******************** EconomicName:Institutional ************************************ **************** ***** ***** ** ******* **** low **** **** *** rapidly increasing of **** ****** 2011) Spine ***** **** it ** ******** to administer *** ********* that *** more ********* ********* ************** *** ******** ** this ***** the ****** ****** ******* nine ********** These **** ******** *** ******** ********* *** study ******** ****** controlled ***** The **** ******* of ******* included ** **** ** *** ******* studies ***** *********** four **** ************* *** the *** **** **** ******** ************** spine manipulation ********* behavior therapy *** exercise **** *** **** ************* **** **** ***** ********* *** **** ********* *** ******** ** *********** *** ********* cost-effectiveness Spinal manipulation *** *** **** cost-effective ** chronic *** acute pains ** established ** *** studyIn yet ******* ***** ** Aboagye et ** ****** regarding *** ****************** of *** ***** ************ ** *** manner ** which the *** **** **** is treated * ****** ** ****** are *********** *** ************* in **** include ******* **** ********* advice *** ******** therapy (Aboagye ***** *** study ******* the ******* yoga ** ** **** ************** **** the ***** two inventions *** ******** **** ** line with the ********** and **** medical **** *** **** ** **** ****** benefits ** people A similar study *** ********* ** ********* ** ** (2017) ** ***** *** interventions ** play included ******** ******** *** ********** The **** recommendations **** *** ***** **** that in ********** *** ********* patient ******* base ** the ********* laid down by *** certified ************ like **** program ***** ****************** #2The ********* *** the ***** by Van der Roer et al *** ***** ** *** **** **** the *********** training ** ******** cost ********* when compared with the conventional care *** focus *** *** ** the ************* ******** ******* that *** high-intensity ******** ******** in * *** of absenteeism ***** *** *** **** pain ******** *** low-intensity ******** *** ********** **** effective *** ** *** ability ** **** *** ****** line of **** ** the ******* ********* ******* *** ******* ** ********** *** study *** ****** *** **** pre-assumptions that **** him to ******* *** ***** ** the various ****** ** ****** ******* **** *** ************* **** school *** **** ********* or ** ********** **** ****************** ***** **** ***** ** the ***** ** *** *** **** *** ** ******** the ******* is *** ****** **** *** *** back pains *** **** ***** ****** *** ********* as **** ****** a lot ** discomfort ** its ******** *** ***** therefore ******* ***** ****** ** people to **** * ******** ************ *** ***** problem The ***** ******* ** ************* ******** ** a ******** ************ *** low-intensity training is then ******** to *** ************** ******** ** ***** *** ******* of ********** include *** associated ***** *** the ***** ******** The items ** ***** ******** ** *** study *** ***** costs personnel *** ********* **** ***** ***** ************* ** *** ******** perspective ********* *** the ***** ** Van *** Roer ** ** (2008) ******** both ****** **** *** ********** **** costs ***** included *** cost of ***** **** the ***** ********** **** *** ********* of training *** ***** of the ******** ********* ***** others ***** ***** were **** evaluation *** done ***** ** the ********* of ********* ** ***** * computation of *** *********** ****************** *** then done based ** the ********** ******* ***** ***** *** ******** ***** and *** control ***** or *** ********* ***** and averaged ** *** ********** obtained in ****** *** ******* perceived ******* *** the intensity ** **** Cost-utility ****** **** **** ******** *** the ***** ****** the *** **** ** follow ** The ******* were **** plotted ** * ************** ***** *** *********** of ********** was determined ** ************* ****** **** **** plottedQuestion ** *** ****** ********* **** ** *** ******** evaluation ***** ******* *** **** ****** **** as ******** ***** medication ********** ******** physical therapist ******** ******** **** and *** ************ **** care The ********* *** *** costing ** ***** ********* *** as ******** ******** use ***** were valued **** **** *** ***** ******** guidelines ***** **** ** the currency ******** Tariffs **** **** ******** in valuing *** resource *** *** ***** ** *********** ** the ************* **** estimated ** the *** of **** ******** ******** The **** value ** *** ******* ********* ******** *** ********** ** the ***** ******* *** pharmacyQuestion **** the ***** the **** ************** ******* ******** ********* the ****** ********** **** ** *** ******** ******* ** *** ***** ** the discussion the ****** ***** that *** ******** was cost ********* ***** *** ******* ** ****** ********* *** ********* this ***** ** ****** ** ************ the *********** ******* *** program is ********* *** *** there *** *** ***** of *********** ********** *** ********* these *** ******** ***** ** ******** ** ****** * ******* In *** ****** ** *** ***** it was ******* **** the cost of *********** ***** ** too **** if appropriate ******** *** not ******** ******* ***** ***** *** ******** ******* *** **** *** most ********* **** ** ******** the ******* ** *** workers *** author compares * ***** ** *** own ** ***** ** *********** **** *** **** ** absenteeism was ****** ***** **** ** *** ********* ************ ** further ******** that **** ********** ** *** ****** rates of **** ******* at ************************************************** E ******** * ******* * ***** ****** * (February ** 2015) ****************** of ***** ************* *** non-specific *** back ***** * ********** ********** ***** ************* ******* **** ******** ******* *** ********* ****** Journal ** ************** ******** ** * 167-173Bernstein I * ***** Q Carville * ***** **** * ******** ** 2017) *** back pain *** ********* ******* ** **** guidance ****** *** C **** * ***** * * ******* * * * ***** ****** M W ***** ** 2011) ****************** ** ****************** ********** for *** back ***** a ********** ****** ******** ***** ******* ** * ************ * * *** T M van * * ***** de * H ********* ** ***** Economic Evaluation ** an ********* ***** ******** ******** ******** **** ***** Care ************* ** ******** **** ******* *** **** **** ***** ** * *******
