Table 2.

Checklist for the economic evaluation of PHIs alongside NEs.

Item description	Has the study complied with the item?
	YES	No	NA
1. Data sources and measurement
1.1 The data used and the reason(s) why it has been chosen has been identified, stated and described in relation to:
1.1.1 all relevant intersectoral outcomes and costs being captured
1.1.2 implementation of the chosen statistical design
1.2 The application to routinely collected administrative data has been done on time to avoid delays in conducting economic evaluations (e.g. due to bureaucratic procedures, anonymization, privacy and confidentiality requirements).
1.3 The study recognize and address attrition and missing data and its consequences for the health economics analysis (bias)
1.4 The study recognize and address measurement errors (e.g. due to discrepancies between the timing of the intervention and period of data availability) and its consequences for the health economics analysis (bias)
2. Setting and location
2.1 Setting and location are stated and explained in relation to social and political priorities
2.2 The source of secondary data that best meets the economic evaluation needs in terms of setting and location has been stated
2.3 Concurrent interventions  have been:
2.3.1 Identified
2.3.2 Tackled with appropriate statistical analysis (e.g. robustness checks; subsample analysis)
2.4 Potential spillovers/externalities effects have been:
2.4.1 Identified through the usage of an economic evaluation logic model
2.4.2 Addressed through appropriate sensitivity analysis
3. Choice of comparators
3.1 The choice of comparators is justified in relation to reduction of selection bias due to non-randomisation, the unit of assignment (individual or aggregate) and data availability
3.2 The existence of potential spillovers/crossovers has been considered in the choice of comparators
3.3 Multiple intervention/control groups have been used to examine sensitivity of the economic evaluation to multiple sources of bias
4. Subgroups
4.1 If equity concerns are included in the economic evaluation, subgroups are defined in relation to distributional concerns
4.2 Potential behavioural responses (e.g. ‘nudge effects’), have been identified and measured
5. Outcome
5.1 An economic evaluation model mapping routinely collected intermediate outcomes to QALYs has been developed, using additional evidence from systematic reviews to identify utility values.
5.2 An economic evaluation framework such as CCA, CBA or MCDA has been chosen and justified
6. Costs
6.1 Costing has been done considering a societal perspective
6.2 When unit cost data associated to a specific resource use are not available, a decision rule (e.g. usage of the average unit cost of the most frequently used service) is explained and justified.
6.3 When specific categories of resource use are not publicly available a decision rule is explained and justified.
6.4 The opportunity cost of transfer payments (i.e. transfer of resources from the government to beneficiaries, with a null net impact on society) has been identified and measured
7. Time horizon
7.1 Linked data are adequate to capture the presence of long term effects
7.2 Appropriate discount rates, in line with the most up to date guidance have been applied
8. Inclusion of a logic model
8.1. A logic model has been developed, and it addresses:
8.1.1 Time horizon(e.g. effects that would 'carry over' after the intervention ended)
8.1.2 possible subgroups effect
8.1.3 externalities and spillovers
9. Analytical methods
9.1 The researchers have justified the source of variation in the exposure to the intervention, choosing a design and a statistical approach which is appropriate in relation to that source of variation.
9.1.1 If the study is a before after design frequent measurements of data on long pre-treatment time periods have been collected
9.2 Multiple statistical designs have been employed to examine the sensitivity of economic evaluation to multiple sources of bias
9.3 The list of potential confounders has been presented
9.4 Causal effects have been interpreted considering potential contaminating policies
9.5 The interpretation of the estimated cost-effectiveness is in line with the estimated parameter
9.6 The methodologies to reduce selection bias have been incorporated into an economic evaluation framework, considering health economics-specific challenges (i.e. skewed outcome and cost data, correlated outcome and cost data).
10. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
10.1 All sources of uncertainty have been identified using appropriate methods (e.g. probabilistic sensitivity analysis; tornado diagrams)
10.2 Cost-effectiveness results according to the different analytical choices have been reported
10.3 Sensitivity analysis has been done in relation to:
10.3.1 assumptions made in relation to unit cost
10.3.2 potential spillovers
10.3.3 comparators
10.3.4 different designs
10.3.5 econometric methodology chosen
10.3.6 unobserved confounding
10.3.7 transfer payments and administrative costs