[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
(a) A fully working electronic version of the model, which could consist of one or more files in Excel or TreeAge. Other software may be used by agreement with the module co-ordinators. The working version of the model should be constructed in such a way that it can be checked for accuracy.
(b) A Word file of not more than 2,000 words (excluding tables) which should form a technical report on the model. It does not need to be a full paper of a type that could be submitted to a journal, but should be a report that concentrates on the model building and results. Therefore there is no need for an introductory section describing the importance of the clinical problem, nor is it necessary to describe the means by which data sources were identified (in other words, details of a search strategy are not required). The report should contain sufficient detail of the clinical issue to make sense of the model, and should identify the sources of all data used. It should describe the model structure and then present and discuss the results of the model. The report itself should be regarded as a self contained document in the same way that an article describing an economic evaluation appears in a peer reviewed journal, i.e. there should be no reference made in the report to any figures, tables, or Excel cell references, etc., that might be contained in the electronic version of the model.
Standard marking criteria will not be used to mark this assignment, but the scope of the work is expected to be equivalent to a 3,000 word essay. Credit will be given for
Accurate and clear construction of the model;
Use of parameters that are informed by real data (note that you are not expected to analyse patient level data or conduct a systematic review for model parameters);
Clear explanation in your report of how the model was built;
Clear presentation in your report of the model results, using graphs, tables, and appropriate text;
Discussion in your report of the meaning of the model results.
Simply repeating a published analysis is not acceptable. Replicating a published model structure with new data is acceptable, but is unlikely to earn much more than a minimum pass mark if the model has a simple structure.
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”best” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]