| Methods |
ITS |
| Participants |
Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) enrollees |
| Interventions |
Ceiling + Fixed |
| Outcomes |
Medicine use |
| Notes |
Same study as Hynd 2008
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not applicable (ITS) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not applicable (ITS) |
| Baseline outcome measurement similarity |
Unclear risk |
Not applicable (ITS) |
| Baseline characteristics similarity |
Unclear risk |
Not applicable (ITS) |
| Protection against contamination |
Unclear risk |
Not applicable (ITS) |
| Intervention independent of other changes |
Unclear risk |
Not mentioned by study authors, but it is a long period (7 years). Intervener is very unlikely over such a long period |
| Shape of the intervention effect pre‐specified |
Low risk |
In 3 of the 4 categories examined, prescription counts are significantly lower following the increase in co‐payment thresholds. Study authors do give a reasonable explanation |
| Intervention unlikely to affect data collection |
Low risk |
Sources and methods were the same before and after the intervention |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Missing data are not mentioned |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
All relevant outcomes in the Methods section are reported in the Results section |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
No other important bias is detected in the study |
| Other bias |
High risk |
Definitions of the 3 beneficiaries groups analysed are not clear |
