Assessing the Value of Provider-Facing Digital Health Technologies Used in Chronic Disease Management: Toward a Value Framework Based on Multistakeholder Perceptions.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-26 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231206803
Caitlin Main, Madeleine Haig, Danitza Chavez, Panos Kanavos
{"title":"Assessing the Value of Provider-Facing Digital Health Technologies Used in Chronic Disease Management: Toward a Value Framework Based on Multistakeholder Perceptions.","authors":"Caitlin Main, Madeleine Haig, Danitza Chavez, Panos Kanavos","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231206803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Hardly any value frameworks exist that are focused on provider-facing digital health technologies (DHTs) for managing chronic disease with diverse stakeholder participation in their creation. Our study aimed to 1) understanding different stakeholder opinions on where value lies in provider-facing technologies and 2) create a comprehensive value assessment framework for DHT assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mixed-methods comprising both primary and secondary evidence were used. A scoping review enabled a greater understanding of the evidence base and generated the initial indicators. Thirty-four indicators were proposed within 6 value domains: health inequalities (3), data rights and governance (6), technical and security characteristics (6), clinical characteristics (7), economic characteristics (9), and user preferences (3). Subsequently, a 3-round Web-Delphi was conducted to rate the indicators' importance in the context of technology assessment and determine whether there was consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The framework was adapted to 45 indicators based on participant contributions in round 1 and delivered 16 stable indicators with consensus after rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-nine indicators showed instability and/or dissensus, particularly the data rights domain, in which all 5 indicators were unstable, showcasing the novelty of the concept of data rights. Significant instability between <i>important</i> and <i>very important</i> ratings was present within stakeholder groups, particularly clinicians and policy experts, indicating they were unsure how different aspects should be valued.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study provides a comprehensive value assessment framework for assessing provider-facing DHTs incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives. Instability for specific indicators was expected due to the novelty of data and analytics integration in health technologies and their assessment. Further work is needed to ensure that, across all types of stakeholders, there is a clear understanding of the potential impacts of provider-facing DHTs.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods may not be well suited for evaluating digital health technologies (DHTs) because of their complexity and wide-ranging impact on the health system.This article adds to the literature by exploring a wide range of stakeholder opinions on the value of provider-facing DHTs, creating a holistic value framework for these technologies, and highlighting areas in which further discussions are needed to align stakeholders on DHTs' value attributes.A Web-based Delphi co-creation approach was used involving key stakeholders from throughout the digital health space to generate a widely applicable value framework for assessing provider-facing DHTs. The stakeholders include patients, health care professionals, supply-side actors, decision makers, and academia from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany.High levels of instability among stakeholders and value domains are demonstrated, indicating the novelty of assessing provider-facing DHTs and their impact on the health system.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10714693/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231206803","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Hardly any value frameworks exist that are focused on provider-facing digital health technologies (DHTs) for managing chronic disease with diverse stakeholder participation in their creation. Our study aimed to 1) understanding different stakeholder opinions on where value lies in provider-facing technologies and 2) create a comprehensive value assessment framework for DHT assessment.

Methods: Mixed-methods comprising both primary and secondary evidence were used. A scoping review enabled a greater understanding of the evidence base and generated the initial indicators. Thirty-four indicators were proposed within 6 value domains: health inequalities (3), data rights and governance (6), technical and security characteristics (6), clinical characteristics (7), economic characteristics (9), and user preferences (3). Subsequently, a 3-round Web-Delphi was conducted to rate the indicators' importance in the context of technology assessment and determine whether there was consensus.

Results: The framework was adapted to 45 indicators based on participant contributions in round 1 and delivered 16 stable indicators with consensus after rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-nine indicators showed instability and/or dissensus, particularly the data rights domain, in which all 5 indicators were unstable, showcasing the novelty of the concept of data rights. Significant instability between important and very important ratings was present within stakeholder groups, particularly clinicians and policy experts, indicating they were unsure how different aspects should be valued.

Conclusions: Our study provides a comprehensive value assessment framework for assessing provider-facing DHTs incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives. Instability for specific indicators was expected due to the novelty of data and analytics integration in health technologies and their assessment. Further work is needed to ensure that, across all types of stakeholders, there is a clear understanding of the potential impacts of provider-facing DHTs.

Highlights: Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods may not be well suited for evaluating digital health technologies (DHTs) because of their complexity and wide-ranging impact on the health system.This article adds to the literature by exploring a wide range of stakeholder opinions on the value of provider-facing DHTs, creating a holistic value framework for these technologies, and highlighting areas in which further discussions are needed to align stakeholders on DHTs' value attributes.A Web-based Delphi co-creation approach was used involving key stakeholders from throughout the digital health space to generate a widely applicable value framework for assessing provider-facing DHTs. The stakeholders include patients, health care professionals, supply-side actors, decision makers, and academia from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany.High levels of instability among stakeholders and value domains are demonstrated, indicating the novelty of assessing provider-facing DHTs and their impact on the health system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估面向提供者的数字健康技术在慢性病管理中的价值:基于多利益相关者感知的价值框架。
目标:几乎没有任何价值框架专注于面向提供者的数字健康技术(DHT),以管理慢性病,并让不同的利益相关者参与其创建。我们的研究旨在1)了解不同利益相关者对面向提供商的技术价值所在的看法,2)为DHT评估创建一个全面的价值评估框架。方法:采用包括主要证据和次要证据的混合方法。范围审查使人们能够更好地了解证据基础,并产生初步指标。在6个价值领域内提出了34个指标:健康不平等(3)、数据权利和治理(6)、技术和安全特征(6),临床特征(7)、经济特征(9)和用户偏好(3)。随后,进行了三轮网络德尔菲,对指标在技术评估中的重要性进行评分,并确定是否达成共识。结果:该框架在第一轮中根据参与者的贡献调整了45个指标,并在第二轮和第三轮之后达成了16个稳定的指标。29项指标显示不稳定和/或不一致,特别是数据权领域,其中所有5项指标都不稳定,显示了数据权概念的新颖性。利益相关者群体,特别是临床医生和政策专家,在重要评级和非常重要评级之间存在显著的不稳定性,这表明他们不确定应该如何评估不同方面。结论:我们的研究为评估面向提供者的DHT提供了一个全面的价值评估框架,结合了不同的利益相关者的观点。由于卫生技术及其评估中数据和分析集成的新颖性,预计特定指标不稳定。需要进一步的工作,以确保所有类型的利益相关者都清楚地了解面向提供者的数字健康技术的潜在影响。亮点:当前的健康技术评估(HTA)方法可能不太适合评估数字健康技术,因为其复杂性和对卫生系统的广泛影响。这篇文章通过探索利益相关者对面向提供商的DHT价值的广泛意见,为这些技术创建一个整体的价值框架,并强调需要进一步讨论的领域,以使利益相关者在DHT的价值属性上保持一致,从而补充了文献。使用了一种基于网络的Delphi共创方法,涉及整个数字健康领域的关键利益相关者,以生成一个广泛适用的价值框架,用于评估面向提供者的DHT。利益相关者包括来自美国、英国和德国的患者、医疗保健专业人员、供应方参与者、决策者和学术界。利益相关者和价值领域之间存在高度不稳定,这表明评估提供者面临的DHT及其对卫生系统的影响是新颖的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Shared Decision Making Is in Need of Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Studies. Reframing SDM Using Implementation Science: SDM Is the Intervention. Incorporating Social Determinants of Health in Infectious Disease Models: A Systematic Review of Guidelines. Calculating the Expected Net Benefit of Sampling for Survival Data: A Tutorial and Case Study. The Use of Nudge Strategies in Improving Physicians' Prescribing Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1