Which one of the following is true of partial pharmacoeconomic evaluations?
Change Image Delete
A. Partial evaluations should be performed as components of full economic evaluations B. Partial evaluations assess all-important components necessary for a complete pharmacoeconomic
analysis C. Partial evaluations may provide a description of the costs, or consequences, of competing
alternatives D. Partial evaluations compare the costs and consequences of two treatments
Based on my research, the best answer here is answer C: partial evaluations may provide a description of the costs, or consequences, of competing alternatives. This is basically the first step in researching which drug therapy would be best for a certain situation.
A full evaluation should be done, but this might be enough to eliminate something as too expensive or too risky. I must repeat: it might be enough to eliminate an option. If a partial evaluation only looks at the costs and consequences, it would be worth it to look into side effects of the drugs as well, which a full evaluation may take into account.
This is a good place to start, but more research should be done, even into the ones you may not use.
Partial evaluations may provide a description of the costs, or consequences, of competing
alternatives-although partial economic evaluations may serve as a useful starting point in outlining or describing the costs or consequences of drug therapy, they are not a component of a full assessment (answer a). a full economic assessment necessitates evaluation of both the costs and consequences of competing alternatives. in the absence of a full evaluation, a partial evaluation may provide some insight into important cost and outcome parameters for a given disease state, but should never serve as the basis for selection of an alternative.