Analytical Frameworks and Outcome Measures in Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions: A Methodological Systematic Review

Cost-effectiveness analysis of app-delivered self-management support (selfBACK) in addition to usual care for people with low back pain in Denmark

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of individually tailored self-management support, delivered via the artificial intelligence-based selfBACK app, as an add-on to usual care for people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Secondary health-economic analysis of the selfBACK randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 9-month follow-up conducted from a Danish national healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (secondary scenario).

SETTING

Primary care and an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

A subset of Danish participants in the selfBACK RCT, including 297 adults with LBP randomised to the intervention (n=148) or the control group (n=149).

INTERVENTIONS

App-delivered evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support as an add-on to usual care compared with usual care alone among people with LBP.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs of healthcare usage and productivity loss, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol-5L Dimension Questionnaire, meaningful changes in LBP-related disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), costs (healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

The incremental costs were higher for the selfBACK intervention (mean difference €230 (95% CI -136 to 595)), where ICERs showed an increase in costs of €7336 per QALY gained in the intervention group, and €1302 and €1634 for an additional person with minimal important change on the PSEQ and RMDQ score, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold value of €23250, the selfBACK intervention has a 98% probability of being cost-effective. Analysis of productivity loss was very sensitive, which creates uncertainty about the results from a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

From a healthcare perspective, the selfBACK intervention is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment for people with LBP. However, including productivity loss introduces uncertainty to the results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03798288.

Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study

Background

Glaucoma is a chronic disease of the optic nerve and a leading cause of severe visual loss in the UK. Once patients have been diagnosed, they need regular monitoring at hospital eye services. Recent advances in technology mean patients with glaucoma can now monitor their disease at home. This could be more convenient for patients and potentially reduce costs and increase capacity for the NHS. However, it is uncertain whether self-monitoring would be acceptable or possible for patients with glaucoma.

Objectives

The objectives were to: identify which patients are most appropriate for home monitoring; understand views of key stakeholders (patients, clinicians, researchers) on whether home glaucoma monitoring is feasible and acceptable; develop a conceptual framework for the economic evaluation of home glaucoma monitoring; and explore the need for and provide evidence on the design of a future study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of digital technologies for home monitoring of glaucoma.

Design

In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost (I-TRAC) was a multiphase mixed-methods feasibility study with key components informed by theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Setting

Expert glaucoma specialists in the UK recruited through professional glaucoma societies; study site staff and patient participants recruited through three UK hospital eye services (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland); and UK research teams recruited though existing networks.

Intervention

Home tonometer that measures intraocular pressure and a tablet computer with a visual function application. Patients were asked to use the technology weekly for 12 weeks.

Results

Forty-two patients were recruited. Retention and completion of follow-up procedures was successful, with 95% (n = 40) completing the 3-month follow-up clinic visits. Adherence to the interventions was generally high [adherence to both devices (i.e. ≥ 80% adherence) was 55%]. Overall, patients and healthcare professionals were cautiously optimistic about the acceptability of digital technologies for home monitoring of patients with glaucoma. While most clinicians were supportive of the potential advantages glaucoma home monitoring could offer, concerns about the technologies (e.g. reliability and potential to miss disease progression) and how they would fit into routine care need to be addressed. Additionally, clarity is required on defining the ideal population for this intervention. Plans for how to evaluate value for money in a future study were also identified. However, the study also highlighted several unknowns relating to core components of a future evaluative study that require addressing before progression to a definitive effectiveness trial.

Limitations

The main limitation relates to our sample and its generalisability, for example, the over-representation of educated persons of white ethnicity who were generally experienced with technology and research motivated.

Conclusions

The In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost study has demonstrated 'cautious optimism' when considering patients' and healthcare professionals' views on the acceptability of digital technologies for home monitoring of patients with glaucoma. However, the study also highlighted several unknowns relating to the research question and design of a future evaluative study that require addressing before progression to a randomised controlled trial.

Future work

Further research is required to determine the appropriate population (i.e. low vs. high risk of progression) and further refine the intervention components and delivery for planning of future evaluation studies.

Study registration

This study is registered as Research Registry #6213.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129248) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 44. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Centering Digital Health Equity During Technology Innovation: Protocol for a Comprehensive Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Tools and Approaches

BACKGROUND

In the rush to develop health technologies for the COVID-19 pandemic, the unintended consequence of digital health inequity or the inability of priority communities to access, use, and receive equal benefits from digital health technologies was not well examined.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review will examine tools and approaches that can be used during digital technology innovation to improve equitable inclusion of priority communities in the development of digital health technologies. The results from this study will provide actionable insights for professionals in health care, health informatics, digital health, and technology development to proactively center equity during innovation.

METHODS

Based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework, this scoping review will consider priority communities' equitable involvement in digital technology innovation. Bibliographic databases in health, medicine, computing, and information sciences will be searched. Retrieved citations will be double screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation). Data will be charted using a tailored extraction tool and mapped to a digital health innovation pathway defined by the Centre for eHealth Research roadmap for eHealth technologies. An accompanying narrative synthesis will describe the outcomes in relation to the review's objectives.

RESULTS

This scoping review is currently in progress. The search of databases and other sources returned a total of 4868 records. After the initial screening of titles and abstracts, 426 studies are undergoing dual full-text review. We are aiming to complete the full-text review stage by May 30, 2024, data extraction in October 2024, and subsequent synthesis in December 2024. Funding was received on October 1, 2023, from the Centre for Health Equity Incubator Grant Scheme, University of Melbourne, Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper will identify and recommend a series of validated tools and approaches that can be used by health care stakeholders and IT developers to produce equitable digital health technology across the Centre for eHealth Research roadmap. Identified evidence gaps, possible implications, and further research will be discussed.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/53855.

Developing a Program Costs Checklist of Digital Health Interventions: A Scoping Review and Empirical Case Study

INTRODUCTION

The rate of development and complexity of digital health interventions (DHIs) in recent years has to some extent outpaced the methodological development in economic evaluation and costing. Particularly, the choice of cost components included in intervention or program costs of DHIs have received scant attention. The aim of this study was to build a literature-informed checklist of program cost components of DHIs. The checklist was next tested by applying it to an empirical case, Mamma Mia, a DHI developed to prevent perinatal depression.

METHOD

A scoping review with a structured literature search identified peer-reviewed literature from 2010 to 2022 that offers guidance on program costs of DHIs. Relevant guidance was summarized and extracted elements were organized into categories of main cost components and their associated activities following the standard three-step approach, that is, activities, resource use and unit costs.

RESULTS

Of the 3448 records reviewed, 12 studies met the criteria for data extraction. The main cost categories identified were development, research, maintenance, implementation and health personnel involvement (HPI). Costs are largely considered to be context-specific, may decrease as the DHI matures and vary with number of users. The five categories and their associated activities constitute the checklist. This was applied to estimate program costs per user for Mamma Mia Self-Guided and Blended, the latter including additional guidance from public health nurses during standard maternal check-ups. Excluding research, the program cost per mother was more than double for Blended compared with Self-Guided (€140.5 versus €56.6, 2022 Euros) due to increased implementation and HPI costs. Including research increased the program costs to €190.8 and €106.9, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed sensitivity to changes in number of users, lifespan of the app, salaries and license fee.

CONCLUSION

The checklist can help increase transparency of cost calculation and improve future comparison across studies.

Is Telemedicine Suitable for Patients with Chronic Inflammatory Skin Conditions? A Systematic Review

Telemedicine, the provision of remote healthcare, has gained prominence, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It has the potential to replace routine in-person follow-up visits for patients with chronic inflammatory skin conditions. However, it remains unclear whether telemedicine can effectively substitute in-person consultations for this patient group. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of telemedicine compared with traditional in-person care for chronic inflammatory skin diseases. A comprehensive search in various databases identified 11 articles, including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 clinical controlled trial (CCT). These studies evaluated telemedicine's impact on patients with psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, with varying methods like video consultations and digital platforms. The findings tentatively suggest that telemedicine does not seem to be inferior compared with in-person care, particularly in terms of condition severity and quality of life for patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the inherent uncertainties in the evidence. There are indications that telemedicine can offer benefits such as cost-effectiveness, time savings, and reduced travel distances, but it is important to recognize these findings as preliminary, necessitating further validation through more extensive research.

Methodological Frameworks and Dimensions to Be Considered in Digital Health Technology Assessment: Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis

BACKGROUND

Digital health technologies (dHTs) offer a unique opportunity to address some of the major challenges facing health care systems worldwide. However, the implementation of dHTs raises some concerns, such as the limited understanding of their real impact on health systems and people's well-being or the potential risks derived from their use. In this context, health technology assessment (HTA) is 1 of the main tools that health systems can use to appraise evidence and determine the value of a given dHT. Nevertheless, due to the nature of dHTs, experts highlight the need to reconsider the frameworks used in traditional HTA.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review (ScR) aimed to identify the methodological frameworks used worldwide for digital health technology assessment (dHTA); determine what domains are being considered; and generate, through a thematic analysis, a proposal for a methodological framework based on the most frequently described domains in the literature.

METHODS

The ScR was performed in accordance with the guidelines established in the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched 7 databases for peer reviews and gray literature published between January 2011 and December 2021. The retrieved studies were screened using Rayyan in a single-blind manner by 2 independent authors, and data were extracted using ATLAS.ti software. The same software was used for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The systematic search retrieved 3061 studies (n=2238, 73.1%, unique), of which 26 (0.8%) studies were included. From these, we identified 102 methodological frameworks designed for dHTA. These frameworks revealed great heterogeneity between them due to their different structures, approaches, and items to be considered in dHTA. In addition, we identified different wording used to refer to similar concepts. Through thematic analysis, we reduced this heterogeneity. In the first phase of the analysis, 176 provisional codes related to different assessment items emerged. In the second phase, these codes were clustered into 86 descriptive themes, which, in turn, were grouped in the third phase into 61 analytical themes and organized through a vertical hierarchy of 3 levels: level 1 formed by 13 domains, level 2 formed by 38 dimensions, and level 3 formed by 11 subdimensions. From these 61 analytical themes, we developed a proposal for a methodological framework for dHTA.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to adapt the existing frameworks used for dHTA or create new ones to more comprehensively assess different kinds of dHTs. Through this ScR, we identified 26 studies including 102 methodological frameworks and tools for dHTA. The thematic analysis of those 26 studies led to the definition of 12 domains, 38 dimensions, and 11 subdimensions that should be considered in dHTA.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Digital Health Technology for Improving the Uptake of Vaccination Programs: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is the most effective strategy to prevent infectious diseases, yet vaccination coverage has not reached the target level. To promote vaccination uptake, digital health interventions (DHIs) have been used in various vaccination programs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs for the improvement of the uptake of vaccination programs.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCOhost), Center for Review and Dissemination, and Institute for IEEE Xplore up to October 2022. Health economic evaluations that met the following inclusion criteria were included: (1) adult or pediatric vaccination programs; (2) interventions delivered through digital technology; (3) full-scale health economic analyses including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, or cost-consequence analyses; and (4) evaluations conducted by model-based or trial-based analyses. The quality of each included study was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

RESULTS

The systematic review included 7 studies. Four of the cost-effectiveness studies were conducted by model-based analyses, and 3 were trial-based analyses. One study reported the additional cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, whereas 6 studies reported the additional cost per individual vaccinated (or return case). The vaccines targeted the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, influenza vaccination, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, and children immunization at different ages. The DHIs were delivered by television campaign, web-based decision aid, SMS text message, telephone, and computer-generated recall letters. The studies were classified as very good (n=5) and good (n=2) qualities. One study concluded that the DHI was cost-saving, and 6 studies concluded that the DHI was cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first systematic review on cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs to improve vaccination uptake. All included studies have good to very good quality on study assessment and reported the DHIs to be cost-saving or cost-effective in the improvement of vaccination uptake.

Outcome measures for economic evaluations and cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for people with intellectual disabilities: A methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mainstream economic evaluations methods may not be appropriate to capture the range of effects triggered by interventions for people with intellectual disabilities. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify, assess and synthesise the arguments in the literature on how the effects of interventions for people with intellectual disabilities could be measured in economic evaluations.

METHOD

We searched for studies providing relevant arguments by running multi-database, backward, forward citation and grey literature searches. Following title/abstract and full-text screening, the arguments extracted from the included studies were summarised and qualitatively assessed in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included three studies, with their arguments summarised in different methodological areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence, we suggest the use of techniques more attuned to the population with intellectual disabilities, such sensitive preference-based instruments to collect health states data, and mapping algorithms to obtain utility values.