Cargando…

The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation

By what measure should a policy maker choose between two mediums that deliver the same or similar message or service? Between, say, video consultation or a remote patient monitoring application (i.e. patient-facing digital health innovations) and in-person consultation? To answer this question, we s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abimbola, Seye, Keelan, Sarah, Everett, Michael, Casburn, Kim, Mitchell, Michelle, Burchfield, Katherine, Martiniuk, Alexandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31270685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5
_version_ 1783450159645982720
author Abimbola, Seye
Keelan, Sarah
Everett, Michael
Casburn, Kim
Mitchell, Michelle
Burchfield, Katherine
Martiniuk, Alexandra
author_facet Abimbola, Seye
Keelan, Sarah
Everett, Michael
Casburn, Kim
Mitchell, Michelle
Burchfield, Katherine
Martiniuk, Alexandra
author_sort Abimbola, Seye
collection PubMed
description By what measure should a policy maker choose between two mediums that deliver the same or similar message or service? Between, say, video consultation or a remote patient monitoring application (i.e. patient-facing digital health innovations) and in-person consultation? To answer this question, we sought to identify measures which are used in randomised controlled trials. But first we used two theories to frame the effects of patient-facing digital health innovations on – 1) transaction costs (i.e. the effort, time and costs required to complete a clinical interaction); and 2) process outcomes and clinical outcomes along the care cascade or information value chain, such that the ‘value of information’ (VoI) is different at each point in the care cascade or value chain. From the trials, we identified three categories of measures: outcome (process or clinical), satisfaction, and cost. We found that although patient-facing digital health innovations tend to confer much of their value by altering process outcomes, satisfaction, and transaction costs, these measures are inconsistently assessed. Efforts to determine the relative value of and choose between mediums of service delivery should adopt a metric (i.e. mathematical combination of measures) that capture all dimensions of value. We argue that ‘value of information’ (VoI) is such a metric – it is calculated as the difference between the ‘expected utility’ (EU) of alternative options. But for patient-facing digital health innovations, ‘expected utility’ (EU) should incorporate the probability of achieving not only a clinical outcome, but also process outcomes (depending on the innovation under consideration); and the measures of utility should include satisfaction and transaction costs; and also changes in population access to services, and health system capacity to deliver more services, which may result from reduction in transaction costs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6734475
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67344752019-09-12 The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation Abimbola, Seye Keelan, Sarah Everett, Michael Casburn, Kim Mitchell, Michelle Burchfield, Katherine Martiniuk, Alexandra Health Econ Rev Review By what measure should a policy maker choose between two mediums that deliver the same or similar message or service? Between, say, video consultation or a remote patient monitoring application (i.e. patient-facing digital health innovations) and in-person consultation? To answer this question, we sought to identify measures which are used in randomised controlled trials. But first we used two theories to frame the effects of patient-facing digital health innovations on – 1) transaction costs (i.e. the effort, time and costs required to complete a clinical interaction); and 2) process outcomes and clinical outcomes along the care cascade or information value chain, such that the ‘value of information’ (VoI) is different at each point in the care cascade or value chain. From the trials, we identified three categories of measures: outcome (process or clinical), satisfaction, and cost. We found that although patient-facing digital health innovations tend to confer much of their value by altering process outcomes, satisfaction, and transaction costs, these measures are inconsistently assessed. Efforts to determine the relative value of and choose between mediums of service delivery should adopt a metric (i.e. mathematical combination of measures) that capture all dimensions of value. We argue that ‘value of information’ (VoI) is such a metric – it is calculated as the difference between the ‘expected utility’ (EU) of alternative options. But for patient-facing digital health innovations, ‘expected utility’ (EU) should incorporate the probability of achieving not only a clinical outcome, but also process outcomes (depending on the innovation under consideration); and the measures of utility should include satisfaction and transaction costs; and also changes in population access to services, and health system capacity to deliver more services, which may result from reduction in transaction costs. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6734475/ /pubmed/31270685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review
Abimbola, Seye
Keelan, Sarah
Everett, Michael
Casburn, Kim
Mitchell, Michelle
Burchfield, Katherine
Martiniuk, Alexandra
The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation
title The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation
title_full The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation
title_fullStr The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation
title_full_unstemmed The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation
title_short The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation
title_sort medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31270685
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5
work_keys_str_mv AT abimbolaseye themediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT keelansarah themediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT everettmichael themediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT casburnkim themediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT mitchellmichelle themediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT burchfieldkatherine themediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT martiniukalexandra themediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT abimbolaseye mediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT keelansarah mediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT everettmichael mediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT casburnkim mediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT mitchellmichelle mediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT burchfieldkatherine mediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation
AT martiniukalexandra mediumthemessageandthemeasureatheorydrivenreviewonthevalueoftelehealthasapatientfacingdigitalhealthinnovation