INTRODUCTION: People from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) experience poorer health outcomes, have many long-term conditions and are persistently under-represented in health and care research. There is limited focus on programmes, or interventions that support inclusion and participation of people from BAFDC in research. Through coproduction, this realist review seeks to provide a programme theory explaining what context and mechanisms may be required, to produce outcomes that facilitate inclusion and participation for people from BAFDC in health and care research, in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A group of people from BAFDC with lived and professional experience, representing all levels of the health and care research system, will coproduce a realist review with a team of African-Caribbean, white British and white British of Polish origin health and care researchers. They will follow Pawson's five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The coproduction group will help to map the current landscape, identifying key issues that may inhibit or facilitate inclusion. Data will be extracted, analysed and synthesised following realist logic analysis, identifying and explaining how context and mechanisms are conceptualised in the literature and the types of contextual factors that exist and impact on inclusion and participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The coproduction group will agree an ethical approach considering accountability, responsibility and power dynamics, by establishing a terms of reference, taking a reflexive approach and coproducing an ethical framework. Findings will be disseminated to BAFDC and the research community through arts-based methods, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, agreeing a coproduced strategy for dissemination. Ethical review is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517124.
Narration , Research Design , Humans , United Kingdom , Review Literature as Topic
BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) should be embedded as part of researchers' everyday practice. However, this can be challenging. Creating a digital presence for PPIE as part of Higher Education Institutes' (HEIs) infrastructure may be one way of supporting this. This can support how information is made available to patients and members of the public, but relatively little is known about how HEIs can best do this. Our aim was to develop a university website for patients and members of the public to learn about ways to get actively involved in research and be able to access the results of health and social care research. METHODS: This project involved working as partners with five National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. NIHR Research Champions are volunteers who raise awareness and share experiences about health and social care research. Content of a prototype Patient Public Community Research Hub website was co-produced with the Research Champions, and then 15 NIHR Research Champions from across England were asked for their views about the website. FINDINGS: The information collected told us that the Patient Public Community Research Hub was viewed as being beneficial for increasing visibility of PPIE opportunities and sharing the findings of studies though needs further work: to make the information more user-friendly; to improve the methods for directing people to the site and to create new ways of connecting with people. It provides a foundation for further co-development and evaluation. A set of recommendations has been developed that may be of benefit to other HEIs and organisations who are committed to working with patients and members of the public.
Sharing the results of health and care research studies with patients and members of the public could be improved. In many cases, patients and members of the public do not receive the results of studies they have taken part in. As well, it should also be easy for patients and members of the public to find out about opportunities to get involved with researchers in the development of their research. Universities have an important role to play in providing opportunities for patients and members of the public to be involved in the development of research studies, as well as sharing the findings of their studies. Creating an online patient public community research hub for this purpose was co-produced with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. The aims of this research were to find out what research volunteers within the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), in the UK, would like to find on a university website about health and care research. This research aimed to understand how best to raise awareness about how people can get involved in research. It also aimed to understand how best to share information about research, with patients and members of the public, from a university website. Five NIHR Research Champions from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (including younger and older people) helped to develop a set of webpages on a university website, called the Patient Public Community Research Hub. Once the initial online hub was created, online interviews were held with another 15 NIHR Research Champions. The interviews were to help the researcher to understand what they thought about the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The results from the interviews were analysed and grouped into themes. The themes helped to tell us what NIHR Research Champions felt patients and members of the public would want to see on the Patient Public Community Research Hub and what areas needed improving. A co-produced set of recommendations was created with the NIHR Research Champions who helped to shape the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The recommendations are for researchers, other organisations, or services to use. These recommendations along with the findings may help to improve how information gets shared about the results of research and ways in which patients and members of the public can get involved.
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that co-design can lead to more engaging, acceptable, relevant, feasible, and even effective interventions. However, no guidance is provided on the specific designs and associated methods or methodologies involved in the process. We propose the development of the Preferred Components for Co-design in Research (PRECISE) guideline to enhance the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting co-design studies used to develop complex health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to develop the first iteration of the PRECISE guideline. The purpose of the PRECISE guideline is to improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use co-design to develop complex health interventions. METHODS: The aim will be achieved by addressing the following objectives: to review and synthesize the literature on the models, theories, and frameworks used in the co-design of complex health interventions to identify their common elements (components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes); and by using the results of the scoping review, prioritize the co-design components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes to be included in the PRECISE guideline. RESULTS: The project has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CONCLUSIONS: The collective results of this project will lead to a ready-to-implement PRECISE guideline that outlines a minimum set of items to include when reporting the co-design of complex health interventions. The PRECISE guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reports of studies. Additionally, it will include guidance on how to enact or enable the values or principles of co-design for meaningful and collaborative solutions (interventions). PRECISE might also be used by peer reviewers and editors to improve the review of manuscripts involving co-design. Ultimately, the PRECISE guideline will facilitate more efficient use of new results about complex health intervention development and bring better returns on research investments. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50463.
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a reporting guideline for authors publishing health economic evaluations. We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the update of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. This need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient organisations could use to support their members to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement to build the evidence base for practice and may provide some reassurance to the public that their voice has played a part in evidence development. The CHEERS 2022 guide for patient representatives and patient organisations aims to support that endeavour by enabling deliberative discussions among patient organisations and their members. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the development of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about patient and public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support patient and public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. The need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient representatives and patient organisations could use as support to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement in order to build the evidence base for practice. The CHEERS 2022 guide aims to support patient representatives and patient organisations to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND: To inform targeted public health strategies, it is crucial to understand how coexisting diseases develop over time and their associated impacts on patient outcomes and health-care resources. This study aimed to examine how psychosis, diabetes, and congestive heart failure, in a cluster of physical-mental health multimorbidity, develop and coexist over time, and to assess the associated effects of different temporal sequences of these diseases on life expectancy in Wales. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used population-scale, individual-level, anonymised, linked, demographic, administrative, and electronic health record data from the Wales Multimorbidity e-Cohort. We included data on all individuals aged 25 years and older who were living in Wales on Jan 1, 2000 (the start of follow-up), with follow-up continuing until Dec 31, 2019, first break in Welsh residency, or death. Multistate models were applied to these data to model trajectories of disease in multimorbidity and their associated effect on all-cause mortality, accounting for competing risks. Life expectancy was calculated as the restricted mean survival time (bound by the maximum follow-up of 20 years) for each of the transitions from the health states to death. Cox regression models were used to estimate baseline hazards for transitions between health states, adjusted for sex, age, and area-level deprivation (Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation [WIMD] quintile). FINDINGS: Our analyses included data for 1â675â585 individuals (811â393 [48·4%] men and 864â192 [51·6%] women) with a median age of 51·0 years (IQR 37·0-65·0) at cohort entry. The order of disease acquisition in cases of multimorbidity had an important and complex association with patient life expectancy. Individuals who developed diabetes, psychosis, and congestive heart failure, in that order (DPC), had reduced life expectancy compared with people who developed the same three conditions in a different order: for a 50-year-old man in the third quintile of the WIMD (on which we based our main analyses to allow comparability), DPC was associated with a loss in life expectancy of 13·23 years (SD 0·80) compared with the general otherwise healthy or otherwise diseased population. Congestive heart failure as a single condition was associated with mean a loss in life expectancy of 12·38 years (0·00), and with a loss of 12·95 years (0·06) when preceded by psychosis and 13·45 years (0·13) when followed by psychosis. Findings were robust in people of older ages, more deprived populations, and women, except that the trajectory of psychosis, congestive heart failure, and diabetes was associated with higher mortality in women than men. Within 5 years of an initial diagnosis of diabetes, the risk of developing psychosis or congestive heart failure, or both, was increased. INTERPRETATION: The order in which individuals develop psychosis, diabetes, and congestive heart failure as combinations of conditions can substantially affect life expectancy. Multistate models offer a flexible framework to assess temporal sequences of diseases and allow identification of periods of increased risk of developing subsequent conditions and death. FUNDING: Health Data Research UK.
Diabetes Mellitus , Heart Failure , Psychotic Disorders , Male , Humans , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Semantic Web , Multimorbidity , Retrospective Studies , Wales/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Psychotic Disorders/epidemiology , Life Expectancy
Introduction: Bystanders' interventions improve chances of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) before Emergency Medical Services arrive. Some areas in England are of concern. These high-risk areas have a higher incidence of cardiac arrest combined with lower-than-average bystander CPR rates and are characterised by higher proportions of minority ethnic group residents and deprivation.Collaborating with people from the Black African and Caribbean and South Asian minority communities in deprived areas of England, we aim to develop and evaluate the implementation of theoretically informed intervention(s) to address factors contributing to lower bystander intervention rates. Methods: The study is a collaborative realist enquiry, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and associated Behaviour Change Wheel. It consists of 1) a realist evidence synthesis to produce initial program theories developed from primary workshop data and published evidence. It will include identifying factors contributing to the issue and potential interventions to address them; 2) theoretically informed intervention development, using the initial program theories and behaviour change theory and 3) a realist mixed methods implementation evaluation with embedded feasibility.Public involvement (PPI) as study team and public advisory group members is key to this study.We will conduct realist evidence synthesis, qualitative and statistical analyses appropriate to the various methods used. Dissemination: We will develop a dissemination plan and materials targeted to members of the public in high-risk areas as well as academic outputs. We will hold an event for participating community groups and stakeholders to share findings and seek advice on next steps. Study registration: ISRCTN90350842. Registration date 28.03.2023. The study was registered after its start date.
BACKGROUND: Meniscal tears affect 222 per 100,000 of the population and can be managed non-operatively or operatively with an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), meniscal repair or meniscal transplantation. The purpose of this review is to summarise the outcomes following treatment with a meniscal tear and explore correlations between outcomes. METHOD: A systematic review was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify prospective studies describing the outcomes of patients with a meniscal tear. Comparisons were made of outcomes between APM and non-operative groups. Outcomes were graphically presented over time for all treatment interventions. Pearson's correlations were calculated between outcome timepoints. RESULTS: 35 studies were included, 28 reported outcomes following APM; four following meniscal repair and three following meniscal transplant. Graphical plots demonstrated a sustained improvement for all treatment interventions. A moderate to very strong correlation was reported between baseline and three-month outcomes. In the medium term, there was small significant difference in outcome between APM and non-operative measures (SMD 0.17; 95 % CI 0.04, 0.29), however, this was not clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a meniscal tear demonstrated a sustained initial improvement in function scores, which was true of all treatments examined. APM may have little benefit in older people, however, previous trials did not include patients who meet the current indications for surgery as a result the findings should not be generalised to all patients with a meniscal tear. Further trials are required in patients who meet current operative indications.
Knee Injuries , Tibial Meniscus Injuries , Aged , Arthroscopy/adverse effects , Humans , Knee Injuries/etiology , Knee Injuries/surgery , Meniscectomy/adverse effects , Menisci, Tibial/surgery , Prospective Studies , Tibial Meniscus Injuries/etiology , Tibial Meniscus Injuries/surgery
OBJECTIVE: To develop and refine a programme theory that explains factors that influence decisions to take part in health research by people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. DESIGN: Realist review following a sequence of five steps: (a) scoping search and identification of programme theory; (b) evidence searching; (c) critical appraisal and data extraction; (d) organisation of evidence and (e) refinement of programme theory. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents (including peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, websites, reports and conference papers) either full text, or a section of relevance to the overarching research question were included. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Psych Info, Google and Google Scholar were searched iteratively between May and August 2020. Search strategy was refined for each database providing a broad enough review for building of programme theory. ANALYSIS: Data from eligible documents was extracted to build understanding of the factors that influence decision-making. Data were mapped to create a data matrix according to context (C), mechanism (M), outcome (O), configurations (C) (CMOCs) for the process of informed consent, to aid interpretation and produce final programme theory. RESULTS: 566 documents were screened and 71 included. Final programme theory was underpinned by CMOCs on processes influencing decisions to take part in research. Key findings indicate the type of infrastructure required, for example, resources, services and policies, to support inclusion in health research, with a greater need to increase the social presence of researchers within communities, improve cultural competency of individuals and organisations, reduce the complexity of participant information, and provide additional resources to support adaptive processes and shared decision making. CONCLUSION: The review indicates the need for a more inclusive research infrastructure that facilitates diverse participation in health research through incorporating adaptive processes that support shared decision making within the informed consent process and in the conduct of research projects.
Decision Making, Shared , Informed Consent , Ethnicity , Humans
Carnegie UK (CUK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) INVOLVE held a meeting on the co-production of research, how we work together on equal terms. We brought together public contributors and individuals from organisations focused on research. We wanted to discuss how co-production could work in research, how it could be seen as business as usual, and to think through the barriers that stop us from working together, as well as the things that can help us move forward. While we agreed that the idea of working together is important, we recognised there are still many challenges to co-production being seen as a normal activity in research and the development of a 'business case' to persuade others is still needed. We also considered the wider civic roles that Universities are adopting as important in helping co-production become normal practice. Discussion focused on issues such as power and how it works in research. We recognised that we also need to create the right conditions for co-production, changing research culture so it becomes kinder, with a focus on the development of relationships. We also recognised the need for enough time for honest, high quality conversations between patients, public contributors and researchers that take account of how power works in research. Co-production was seen as a societal 'good,' helping us live well by undertaking research together that benefits the health of the public. We also identified a range of ways we could move co-production forward, recognising we are on a journey and that current societal changes brought about by Covid-19 may result in us being more radical in how we rethink the ways we want to work in research.
Carnegie UK (CUK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) INVOLVE held a meeting on the co-production of research, how we work together on equal terms. We brought together public contributors and individuals from organisations focused on research. We wanted to discuss how co-production could work in research, how it could be seen as business as usual, and to think through the barriers that stop us from working together, as well as the things that can help us move forward. While we agreed that the idea of working together is important, we recognised there are still many challenges to co-production being seen as a normal activity in research and the development of a 'business case' to persuade others is still needed. We also considered the wider civic roles that Universities are adopting as important in helping co-production become normal practice. Discussion focused on issues such as power and how it works in research. We recognised that we also need to create the right conditions for co-production, changing research culture so it becomes kinder, with a focus on the development of relationships. We also recognised the need for enough time for honest, high quality conversations between patients, public contributors and researchers that take account of how power works in research. Co-production was seen as a societal 'good,' helping us live well by undertaking research together that benefits the health of the public. We also identified a range of ways we could move co-production forward, recognising we are on a journey and that current societal changes brought about by Covid-19 may result in us being more radical in how we rethink the ways we want to work in research.
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Peer Review , Research Report , Checklist , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Research Design
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Economics, Medical , Peer Review , Checklist , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Research Report
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement, including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Economics, Medical , Research Report , Checklist , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Peer Review
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Biomedical Research/standards , Economics, Medical/standards , Biomedical Research/economics , Checklist , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Female , Humans , Peer Review , Research Personnel/standards , Stakeholder Participation
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Checklist , Economics, Medical/standards , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Humans , Publishing , Research Design/standards
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Economics, Medical , Research Report , Checklist , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Peer Review
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Peer Review , Research Report , Checklist , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Delivery of Health Care , Humans
