| A | B | C | D | E | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Guide to interpreting this analysis | Code | ||||
2 | Purpose of this analysis | |||||
3 | As of July 2024, this document is out of date. For the most up-to-date version of this analysis, see this sheet. We only explicitly model some of the potential outcomes of each top charity's intervention. Many other potential outcomes of each intervention are excluded to keep the core models tractable. On this sheet, we include rough guesses on how much other potential impacts of our top charity's interventions would change our overall cost-effectiveness estimates if it were explicitly modeled (column E). We also rank each effect according to three criteria (columns F through H). We use these rankings to create a weighted best guess of the impact of each effect on cost-effectiveness (columns K through M). We apply these adjustments in the "Supplemental intervention-level adjustments" section of each top charity sheet. | |||||
4 | Factors assessed for each outcome | |||||
5 | ||||||
6 | Rough best guess of effect size | |||||
7 | Very low | <15% | ||||
8 | Medium | 15-25% | ||||
9 | High | 25-50% | ||||
10 | Very high | >50% | ||||
11 | ||||||
12 | Can it be objectively justified? | |||||
13 | Not really | 0 | ||||
14 | Quantifying the effect is a guess - but some answers are more likely than others; the evidence relies on non-experimental studies; or the evidence is very contradictory. | 1 | ||||
15 | Quantifying the effect requires an extrapolation from direct evidence, the evidence is mixed, or the evidence relies on quasi-experimental studies. | 2 | ||||
16 | There is strong direct evidence of this effect (e.g. an RCT in a similar setting); or the effect is obvious | 3 | ||||
17 | ||||||
18 | Ease of modeling | |||||
19 | It is impossible to model the effect with any reasonable degree of accuracy | 0 | ||||
20 | It's unclear how we would model this effect, and it would add a lot of complexity to the model | 1 | ||||
21 | The methodology is clear, but adds substantial complexity to the model | 2 | ||||
22 | The methodology is clear and simple | 3 | ||||
23 | ||||||
24 | Consistency | |||||
25 | The effect would be equally relevant to other CEAs, and has not been included | 1 | ||||
26 | The effect is included in other CEAs, but is less (half as) relevant here OR the effect is not included in other CEAs, but is more (twice as) relevant here | 2 | ||||
27 | The effect is included in other CEAs | 3 | ||||
28 | ||||||