Assessing the Value of Provider-Facing Digital Health Technologies Used in Chronic Disease Management : Toward a Value Framework Based on Multistakeholder Perceptions
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:44 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making - 44(2023), 1 vom: 01. Jan., Seite 28-41 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Main, Caitlin [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Decision-making |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 16.12.2023 Date Revised 16.12.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1177/0272989X231206803 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM363744665 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM363744665 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231227133119.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1177/0272989X231206803 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1230.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM363744665 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37882333 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Main, Caitlin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Assessing the Value of Provider-Facing Digital Health Technologies Used in Chronic Disease Management |b Toward a Value Framework Based on Multistakeholder Perceptions |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 16.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 16.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a decision-making | |
| 650 | 4 | |a delphi exercise | |
| 650 | 4 | |a digital health technology | |
| 650 | 4 | |a health technology assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a value framework | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Haig, Madeleine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chavez, Danitza |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kanavos, Panos |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making |d 1993 |g 44(2023), 1 vom: 01. Jan., Seite 28-41 |w (DE-627)NLM012875996 |x 1552-681X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:44 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:01 |g month:01 |g pages:28-41 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231206803 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 44 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 01 |c 01 |h 28-41 | ||