Systematic Outcomes Analysis in the 7th building block Evaluation[economic & comparative], uses two types of intervention comparison.
Comparison 1: Quantitative multi-intervention effect size meta-analysis
This type of comparison relies on effect sizes being available for high level outcomes from all of the interventions which are being compared. If they are not available then this type of analysis cannot be done. The Prerequisites building blocks 5-8 diagram here sets out the prerequisites for elements within the Systematic Outcomes Analysis building blocks. If Comparison 1 is being used by decision makers as the major factor in selecting between different interventions, this only makes sense in one case. This is a case where the ease of undertaking E[outcome] studies which produce effect sizes (Designs 1-4 here) does not differ in any major way for the different interventions being compared. If there are major differences in the ease with which this type of outcome design can be undertaken, then decision makers will be biasing their decisions in the direction of interventions for which it is easy to undertake E[outcome] Designs 1-4. Comparison 1 decision making is likely to enhance decision making in situations such where the effectiveness of different types of pharmaceuticals are being compared, but it is less well suited to situations where decision makers are attempting to compare very different interventions with different ease of outcome evaluation (e.g. individual interventions versus community programs).
Comparison 2: Mixed qualitative/quantitative multi-intervention comparison analysis
This comparison covers a diverse range of different types of comparisons between interventions. This includes general reviews of what works and what does not work, summaries of qualitative studies etc. It is not restricted to just qualitative findings because there is no reason why quantitative results should not be also considered in such reviews.
[V1.1.2]