Economics Evaluation: Addressing Anxiety Among Secondary Students

ECONOMICS EVALUATION1
Addressing the problem of anxiety among secondary students
Name
Course
Institutional affiliation
City and state
Date
REQUIREMENTS IN QUESTION TWO CANT FIT IN 150 WORDS

ECONOMICS EVALUATION2
Qtn2
Intervention of interest
The intervention of interest of this study is to evaluate the most appropriate way of
undertaking an intervention aimed at preventing the levels of anxiety among adolescents in
secondary school using less time and resources. Similarly, the alternative intervention is
focused on assessing money value in the delivery free online modules for anxiety and the
screening process.
Relevant population
The intervention's area of focus or target population are adolescent in a secondary school.
The name of the intervention is free anxiety and is best on two main areas or components.
The first intervention under free anxiety will majorly focus on adolescents that already
exhibit anxiety risks (Baker, 2013). The second intervention will focus on hindering or
guarding adolescent in a secondary school from becoming anxiety victims and will consist of
a total of eight modules.
Health outcomes
Aspects such as measures of referrals, prospection and anxiety diagnosis will be considered
under the expected primary outcomes. Patient effects and process of care measures are
under the secondary intervention outcomes (Baker, 2013)
Period of time of the study
The studies will takes a total of eight weeks and thirty minutes will be spent on each of the 8
online modules

ECONOMICS EVALUATION3
The RCT time horizon will be used for this intervention since it is the most appropriate in
enhancing the levels of concentration given that diaries are involved (Berger et al 2014).
Perspective Taken
Health providers, family and students costs and benefits are the perspectives for the above
economic evaluation
Most appropriate method of economic evaluation
For clinical methods of valuation, economic analyses differ in terms of quality and the
perspective. They greatly influence the nature of decision and policies that are made and
such decisions should be concurrent with the method used in the evaluation. The research
team should however understand the fact that there is no single most appropriate method
of economic valuation although agreements do exist on a number of different
methodological qualities.
Since the study is aimed at assessing the health standards of students at school, it would be
much more relevant to use the costs and benefits analysis method. The cost involved would
much easier be correlated to the improvement of health standards of the students as the
“anxiety free” program is aimed at providing better health standards specifically among
college students. This evaluation technique takes into consideration the unit cost for every
individual will be attended to. For example the willingness and ability to pay for the study to
be carried has to be among the considerations to take as these factors greatly influence the
success of the study especially in terms of raising funds necessary. An average of all the
other associated costs such as medication, costs related to counseling services and other
costs is used as the benchmark for assessing the results of the initiative together and then

ECONOMICS EVALUATION4
and then this would give a conclusive statement about the method applied in the study in
relation to the incurred expenses and overall achievements obtained.
The impacts will then be compared to the improvements in life standards especially after
taking into account the follow up period which can possibly take place in ninth or any other
following week since the study is scheduled to last for a period of eight weeks (Buntrock et
al 2017). Therefore, the cost and benefits and analysis will be the most appropriate method
to use for economic evaluation. This is so due to the fact it creates a clear relationship
between the costs and benefits of fighting against anxiety among students.
Identification of resources to collect under categories c1, c2, c3 and c4
The resources in the categories of C4, c3, C1 and C2 are very important for this
anxiety intervention. Health costs are represented by C1 and they include resource costs for
professionals. Activities such as facilitation and payment of providers of care are under
professional resource costs. Values for resources and services which are effectively
consumed for anxiety intervention are under C1, making it a direct cost. In the process of
accessing health services, it is clear that there is incurrence of professional resource costs.
The intervention is directly impacted by the costs of health care and C1 resource categories
get most of the funding from government. Health care professionals will have to be
supported by Government in this intervention for purposes of attaining the expected
outcomes
Also, the intervention is directly concerned with C2 (non health care costs). All
resources consumed in the process of the intervention are part of health care costs.
Community services are grouped under non health care costs. Community support will be