Page 64 - Effective healthcare cost containment policies Using the Netherlands as a case study - Niek W. Stadhouders

Chapter 3
Appendix to Chapter 3
Appendix 3.1: constructing a quality and risk-of-bias assessment tool
We use the following risk-of-bias assessment tools and quality assessment tools:
1. The ACROBAT-NRSI risk of bias assessment (Sterne et al., 2014)
2. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC) data
3. 4.
5. 6.
Based 1.
2.
3. 4. 5.
collection checklist1
The Cochrane Non Randomised Studies Methods Group (NRSMG) checklist (Olsen, 2002) EPPI-Centre data extraction and quality assessment guidelines for health promotion outcome and process evaluations (Peersman et al., 1997)
The RE-AIM framework to document data on intervention reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance(Glasgow et al., 1999),
Various quality assessment tools (Evers et al., 2005; Group, 2004; Harbour and Miller, 2001; Sterne et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2012; West et al., 2002).
on these existing risk-of-bias assessment tools, we define five domains of quality:
Content validity: Describes to what extent the content (measurement, outcomes, topics) of an article is in line with the aim of our review. For example, studies who look at sector costs have lower content validity for our review compared to studies who look at total costs Selection bias: Determines to what extent the results of the review may be biased due to selection of treatment groups and selection of participants within treatment and control groups
confounding bias: Measures the extent that the results of the article is biased by factors that are not included in the analysis
Measurement bias: Shows the extent that the results may be biased due to errors in measurement and data collection
Reliability: assessment of the robustness of the results and the generalizability of the effects.
We tested our assessment tool extensively using pilots and expert focus groups. The full risk-of-bias assessment is openly available at https://www.radboudumc- surveys.nl/iqh/v206/index.php/624933?lang=nl
Questions:
1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
Table 3.2: Aggregated results of the review assessment
2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
3. Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria reported in the review?
4. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
5. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
6. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
1 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group: The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group Data Collection Checklist. Aberdeen, U.K., University of Aberdeen 1998
56