b’xc2xa0xc2xa0PUBH 430 xc2x96 Health Economics Assignment – 2 Total marks = 100 (10%) (Economic evaluation evidence for Decision Making) Instructions for preparing and submitting the assignment 1. The assignment’

b’nPUBH 430 xe2x80x93 Health EconomicsAssignment – 2 Total marks = 100 (10%)(Economic evaluation evidence for Decision Making)Instructions for preparing and submitting the assignment1.xc2xa0xc2xa0 The assignment must be submitted by midnight of Monday 25th December, 2017.2.xc2xa0xc2xa0 The title page of the assignment should include studentsxe2x80x99 ID number, title of the assignment, submission date and word count.3.xc2xa0xc2xa0 Please do not write your name anywhere in the assignment, including the title page4.xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 There is no fixed word limit, however, it should NOT exceed 2,500 words in length.5.xc2xa0xc2xa0 All assignments must be submitted via the SafeAssign on the Blackboard6.xc2xa0xc2xa0 You are given a case study based on an economic evaluation of alternative treatment options in patients with chronic low back pain. You are provided with a published economic evaluation study by van der Roer et al. (2008) from the literature, which investigated the cost-effectiveness of two alternative options. Your task is to answer a number of questions that are stipulated in the assignment. It can be noted that, a companion paper which provides more details on the original study by Roer et al. (2008), is also attached.7.xc2xa0xc2xa0 While preparing assignments students should be aware of the fact that any type of plagiarism will not be accepted at all, and any evidence of plagiarism will be dealt with strictly in line with the Qatar University guidelines.8.xc2xa0xc2xa0 The grading of the assignment will be based on criteria set out in the course syllabus, However, the weighting of the marks will be as follows:CriteriaWeightingIdentifying appropriate points and literature related to the case study while answering the question30%Describe relevant points clearly in line with concepts and principles of economic evaluation taught30%Correct analysis and originality while critically appraising the evidence from the published study30%Overall presentation xe2x80x93 coherent arguments and clear structure while preparing summary evidence from the published study10%9.xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 Please use 12 points of Time New Roman or Calibri font and 1.5 lines space in the paragraph.Assignment -2Economic evaluation of interventions treating patients with low back painLow back pain is a common problem and although not seriously affects individualxe2x80x99s health, it causes a great deal of discomfort and brings a substantial financial burden to our society. The major social and economic loss due to the low back pain leads to policy makers determining the most cost-effectiveness interventions for these patients. A variety of physiotherapeutic interventions was available at the time for low back pain patients, but their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were not properly investigated. Evidence from the literature suggests that exercise therapy, behavioral therapy and back school programs were the most promising interventions (Hayden et al., 2005; Haymans et al., 2004).Van der Roer et al. (2004, 2008) conducted an economic evaluation of an Intensive Group training protocol compared with usual car physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT).References1.van der Roer et al. (2008):Economic Evaluation of an Intensive Group TrainingProtocol Compared With Usual Care Physiotherapy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain, Spine 33(4)2. van der Roer et al. (2004):Economic Evaluation of an Intensive Group TrainingProtocol Compared With Usual Care Physiotherapy in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 4:45QuestionsQ-1: Provide a brief literature review of published studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions for treating patients with low back pain in a primary care setting xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 (15 marks)Q- 2: Provide a rationale for the economic evaluation study conducted by van der Roer et al. (2008) xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 (15 marks)Q- 3: Identify and describe xe2x80x98PICOxe2x80x99 terms in the economic evaluation study conducted by van der Roer et al (2008)xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 (15 marks)Q-4: Identify and describe the rationale of the economic evaluation perspective taken in the van der Roer et al. (2008) study xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 (10 marks)Q-5: Identify the healthcare resources used for the economic evaluation and describe how these resources are costedxc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 (15 marks)Q-6: Provide the main cost-effectiveness results observed in the published studyxc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0xc2xa0 (15 marks)Q-7: Identify main limitations found by van der Roer at al. (2008) in their cost-effectiveness study xc2xa0xc2xa0 (15 marks) ‘