Table 2.

Checklist assessing the quality of economic evaluations.

Category	Item Description	Zulman et al. (2017)	Weisner et al. (2001)	Weeks et al. (2009)	Weaver et al. (2009)	Van Orden et al. (2009)	Olsson et al. (2009)	Leeuwen et al. (2015)	Lanzeta et al. (2016)	Goorden et al. (2013)	Boland et al. (2015)	Donohue et al. (2014)	Cohen et al. (2012)	Wise et al. (2006)	McCall et al. (2010)	Simon et al. (2001)	Hebert et al. (2008)	Vroomen et al. (2012)	Salmon et al. (2012)	Looman et al. (2016)	Celano et al. (2016)	Markle-Reid et al. (2010)	Pozzilli et al. (2002)	Tzeng et al. (2007)	Bergmann et al. (2017)	Koch et al. (2017)	Rosenheck et al. (2016)	Sahlen et al. (2016)	Blom et al. (2016)	Pimperl et al. (2017)	Schellenberg et al. (2004)	Bird et al. (2012)	Goltz et al. (2013)	Steuten et al. (2007)	Wiley-Exley et al. (2009)	Karow et al. (2012)	Renaud et al. (2009)	Tanajewski et al. (2015)	Lambeek et al. (2010)	Bertelsen et al. (2017)	Camacho et al. (2018)	Everink et al. (2018)	Kam et al. (2018)	Ulttenbroek et al. (2018)	Tsiachristas et al. (2015)	%
Study design	1. Design was experimental (e.g. RCT or cluster-RCT) or quasi experimental design (e.g. used propensity score matching, pretest-posttest design)?	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	75
	2. Random allocation into intervention and control groups	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	57
	3. The study population consist of an intervention and control group	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	Y	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	91
	4. Relevant baseline characteristics are comparable	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	NA	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	72
	5. The interventions or strategies being compared are described	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	98
	6. Included more than just baseline and follow up period	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	61
	7. Clear description of inclusion and exclusion	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	86
	8. Clear description of drop-outs	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	70
Intervention setting	9. Stated relevant aspects of the system(s) in which intervention takes place	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	84
	10. Co-interventions or contamination are avoided	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	32
Measurement of costs & outcomes	11. Describe the perspective of the study and relate this to the outcomes and costs being evaluated.	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	75
	12. Described which outcomes were used as the measure(s) of benefit in the evaluation	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	100
	13. Inclusion of development and implementation cost	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	34
	14. Inclusion of cost & utilization from across all relevant health and social sectors	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	66
	15. Inclusion of direct non-medical and indirect costs	○	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	39
	16. Justification for omitting costs categories	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	N/A	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	NA	○	○	○	○	○	○	✓	NA	○	✓	○	○	NA	○	○	✓	○	○	NA	○	✓	✓	○	NA	29
	17. The sources of resource utilization and cost are described	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	91
	18. The resource utilization and costs are reported separately	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	75
	19. Reports the (adjusted) dates of estimated resource quantities and unit costs	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	73
	20. Discounting of outcomes and costs performed	○	NA	○	NA	○	○	Y	NA	○	○	NA	NA	NA	○	○	○	Y	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	○	○	○	NA	NA	○	○	○	○	Y	NA	NA	Y	NA	N/A	NA	○	NA	NA	NA	○	18
Statistical analysis	21. Data analysis is performed according intention-to-treat principle	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	39
	22. Dealt adequately with missing observations	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	59
	23. Appropriate statistical methods for analysing skewed data	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	68
	24. Report the values, ranges, references, and if used, probability distributions for all parameters.	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	91
	25. Analysed cost-effectiveness using the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER) method	○	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	55
	26. Analysed cost-effectiveness using the incremental net- monetary or health benefit (INB) regression method	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	7
	27. Performed sub group analysis to examine heterogeneity of results	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	48
	28. Analysed the uncertainty in the estimates of the costs and effects	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	64
Presentation of data	29. A decision criteria is applied to determine whether to reject or accept intervention (e.g. willingness-to-pay vs. cost effectiveness threshold)	○	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	○	✓	○	○	○	○	○	✓	○	✓	○	○	○	○	✓	✓	✓	○	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	○	43
	30. The study discusses the generalizability of the results to other context and/or patient groups	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	98

Legend: yes ✓, no ○.