Cargando…

How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review

In Europe, there were almost twice as many patents granted for medical technology (13,795) compared to pharmaceuticals (7441) in 2018. It is important to ask how to integrate such an amount of innovations into routine clinical practice and how to measure the value it brings to the healthcare system....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kolasa, Katarzyna, Kozinski, Grzegorz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209988
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062119
_version_ 1783519652504141824
author Kolasa, Katarzyna
Kozinski, Grzegorz
author_facet Kolasa, Katarzyna
Kozinski, Grzegorz
author_sort Kolasa, Katarzyna
collection PubMed
description In Europe, there were almost twice as many patents granted for medical technology (13,795) compared to pharmaceuticals (7441) in 2018. It is important to ask how to integrate such an amount of innovations into routine clinical practice and how to measure the value it brings to the healthcare system. Given the novelty of digital health interventions (DHI), one can even question whether the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) approach developed for pharmaceuticals can be used or whether we need to develop a new DHI’s value assessment framework. We conducted a systematic literature review of published DHIs’ assessment guidelines. Each publication was analyzed with a 12-items checklist based on a EUnetHTA core model enriched with additional criteria such as usability, interoperability, and data security. In total, 11 value assessment guidelines were identified. The review revealed that safety, clinical effectiveness, usability, economic aspects, and interoperability were most often discussed (seven out of 11). More than half of the guidelines addressed organizational impact, data security, choice of comparator, and technical considerations (six out of 11). The unmet medical needs (three out of 11), along with the ethical (two out of 11) and legal aspects (one out of 11), were given the least attention. No author provided an analytical framework for the calculation of clinical and economic outcomes. We elicited five recommendations for the choice of DHI’s value criteria and a methodological suggestion for the pricing and reimbursement framework. Our conclusions lead to the need for a new DHI’s value assessment framework instead of a QALY approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7143608
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71436082020-04-14 How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review Kolasa, Katarzyna Kozinski, Grzegorz Int J Environ Res Public Health Review In Europe, there were almost twice as many patents granted for medical technology (13,795) compared to pharmaceuticals (7441) in 2018. It is important to ask how to integrate such an amount of innovations into routine clinical practice and how to measure the value it brings to the healthcare system. Given the novelty of digital health interventions (DHI), one can even question whether the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) approach developed for pharmaceuticals can be used or whether we need to develop a new DHI’s value assessment framework. We conducted a systematic literature review of published DHIs’ assessment guidelines. Each publication was analyzed with a 12-items checklist based on a EUnetHTA core model enriched with additional criteria such as usability, interoperability, and data security. In total, 11 value assessment guidelines were identified. The review revealed that safety, clinical effectiveness, usability, economic aspects, and interoperability were most often discussed (seven out of 11). More than half of the guidelines addressed organizational impact, data security, choice of comparator, and technical considerations (six out of 11). The unmet medical needs (three out of 11), along with the ethical (two out of 11) and legal aspects (one out of 11), were given the least attention. No author provided an analytical framework for the calculation of clinical and economic outcomes. We elicited five recommendations for the choice of DHI’s value criteria and a methodological suggestion for the pricing and reimbursement framework. Our conclusions lead to the need for a new DHI’s value assessment framework instead of a QALY approach. MDPI 2020-03-23 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7143608/ /pubmed/32209988 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062119 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Kolasa, Katarzyna
Kozinski, Grzegorz
How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review
title How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review
title_full How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review
title_fullStr How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review
title_full_unstemmed How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review
title_short How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review
title_sort how to value digital health interventions? a systematic literature review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209988
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062119
work_keys_str_mv AT kolasakatarzyna howtovaluedigitalhealthinterventionsasystematicliteraturereview
AT kozinskigrzegorz howtovaluedigitalhealthinterventionsasystematicliteraturereview