Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Direct Costs of Healthcare for Children with Type 1 Diabetes Using a CGM System: A Health Economic Analysis of the VIDIKI Telemedicine Study in a German Setting

Aims The Virtual Diabetes Outpatient Clinic for Children and Adolescents (VIDIKI) study was a 6-month quasi-randomized, multicentre study followed by an extension phase to evaluate the effects of monthly video consultations in addition to regular care. A health economic analysis was conducted to assess the direct costs. Methods The cost data of 240 study participants (1–16 years of age) with type 1 diabetes who were already using a continuous glucose monitoring system were collected in the first 6 months of the study. The intervention group (IG) received monthly video consultations plus regular care, and the waiting control group (WG) received only regular care. Cost data were collected for a comparable anonymized group of children from the participating health insurance companies during the 6-month period before the study started (aggregated data group [AG]). Results Cost data were analysed for the AG (N=840) 6 months before study initiation and those for the study participants (N=225/240). Hospital treatment was the highest cost category in the AG. There was a cost shift and cost increase in the IG and WG, whereby diabetes supplies were the highest cost category. The mean direct diabetes-associated 6-month costs were € 4,702 (IG) and € 4,936 (WG). Conclusion The cost development within the cost collection period over two years possibly reflects the switch to higher-priced medical supplies. Video consultation as an add-on service resulted in a small but nonsignificant reduction in the overall costs.

CHoosing Active Role Models to INspire Girls (CHARMING): protocol for a cluster randomised feasibility trial of a school-based, community-linked programme to increase physical activity levels in 9–10-year-old girls

Background In the UK, there is evidence that girls’ physical activity tends to decline to a greater extent than boys as they enter adolescence. ‘Role models’ could play a vital role in inspiring girls to become or remain physically active. The CHARMING Programme is a primary school-based community linked role-model programme, co-developed in 2016, with children, parents, schools and wider stakeholders. It involves different types of physical activity delivered for 1-h each week by a community provider and peer role models (e.g. older girls from secondary schools) joining in with the sessions. The programme ultimately aims to increase and sustain physical activity levels among 9–10-year-old girls. This study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the CHARMING Programme and of evaluating it using a randomised trial. Methods This study is a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. Approximately 90 Year 5 (i.e. 9–10-year-old) girls will be recruited across six primary schools in Mid-South Wales. Participating schools will be allocated to the programme: control on a 2:1 basis; four intervention schools will run the CHARMING Programme and two will continue with usual practice. A survey and accelerometer will be administered at baseline and repeated at 12 months. Interviews and focus groups will be conducted post-intervention delivery. The primary aim is to assess feasibility of a future randomised trial via the recruitment of schools, participants and role models; randomisation; retention; reach; data collection completion rates; programme adherence; and programme fidelity, views on intervention acceptability and programme barriers and facilitators. Secondary aims are to evaluate established physical activity outcome measures for children plus additional health economic outcomes for inclusion in a future full-scale trial. Discussion The results of this study will inform decisions on whether and how to proceed to a full-scale evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the CHARMING Programme to improve or sustain physical activity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN36223327. Registered March 29, 2021