Table 1.

Quality appraisal of economic evaluations of role substitution in primary care

Drummond question	Community Pharmacy Medicines Management Project Evaluation Team (2007)12	Dierick-van Daele et al, 201013	Lee et al, 200414	Neilson et al, 201515	Richardson et al, 201316	Turner et al, 200817
Was a well-defined question posed in an answerable form?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given?	✓	✓	✓	–	–	✓
Was the effectiveness of the programmes or services established?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified?	–	✓	✓	✗	✓	✓
Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate physical units?	–	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Were costs and consequences valued credibly?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing?	n/a	–	n/a	n/a	✓	✓
Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed?	n/a	n/a	n/a	✓	✓	✓
Was allowance made for uncertainty in the establishments of costs and consequences?	✗	✓		✓	✓	✗
Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Quality assessment score out of a possible 10 (including questions answered n/a)a	7	9	9	8	9	9

^aQuality rating based on the number of Drummond questions answered: 0–5 = poor quality, 6–8 = moderate quality, >9 = good quality.¹¹ ✓ = yes. ✗ = no. – = can’t tell. n/a = not applicable.