PD12 Quality Assessment Of Health Economic Evaluation On Screening Programs From China

Introduction With the increasing use of health economic evaluation (HEE) in decision-making and health resource allocation and management policy design has seen an increase in HEE studies on screening programs in China l. In addition to the quantity of HEE, the quality may be of particular concern as it influences the reliability of HEE evidence adopted in policy formulation. This study sought to assess the reporting quality of HEE on screening programs over the last 20 years in China and identify potential predictors and relevant recommendations to improve the quality of study reporting. Methods A search of HEE studies published in PubMed, Embase, CNKI and WANFANG from 2000 to 2021 was performed. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality if reporting using the 24 item Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards ( CHEERS) checklist. The CHEERS score for each study was converted into standardized 0-1 point scale. General liner regression was used to identify predictors associated with the reporting quality. Results One hundred and thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean standardized score for the included studies was 0.56 (title), 0.64 (abstract), 0.74 (introduction), 0.58 (methods), 0.40 (results), 0.70 (discussion), and 0.54 (other section). The number and reporting quality of articles published each year showed an overall upward trend. A greater proportion of studies were published in Chinese journal (69.2%), modelling-based (54.9%), conducted by universities/research institutions (45.9%), focused on non-infectious disease (84.2%), using cost-effectiveness analysis method (50.4%), published in non-specialty journal (60.2%), and declaring the funding support (76.7%). Items related to study perspective, discount rate, measurement of effectiveness, currency and price, analytical methods, uncertainty, heterogeneity and conflicts were under-reported. Published year, journal type, first author affiliation and economic evaluation type predicted higher score in regression analyses (p<0.05). Conclusions Overall, the quantity and quality of HEE on screening programs in China is improving, although there is a need to improve the use of on specific reporting items in the CHEERS criteria. The use of suitable evaluation guidelines will make the decision-making process more scientific.