IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v21y2024i10p1277-d1485649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appraising eHealth Investment for Africa: Scoping Review and Development of a Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Sean C. Broomhead

    (Department of TeleHealth, School of Nursing & Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa
    Health Information Systems Program South Africa, Pretoria 0181, South Africa
    African Centre for eHealth Excellence, Cape Town 7130, South Africa)

  • Maurice Mars

    (Department of TeleHealth, School of Nursing & Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa)

  • Richard E. Scott

    (Department of TeleHealth, School of Nursing & Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa
    Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z5, Canada)

Abstract

Background: As opportunities grow for resource-constrained countries to use eHealth (digital health) to strengthen health systems, a dilemma arises. Wise eHealth investments require adequate appraisal to address opportunity costs. Economic appraisal techniques conventionally utilised for this purpose require sufficient economic expertise and adequate data that are frequently in short supply in low- and middle-income countries. This paper aims to identify, and, if required, develop, a suitable framework for performing eHealth investment appraisals in settings of limited economic expertise and data. Methods: Four progressive steps were followed: (1) identify required framework attributes from published checklists; (2) select, review, and chart relevant frameworks using a scoping review; (3) analyse the frameworks using deductive and inductive iterations; and, if necessary, (4) develop a new framework using findings from the first three steps. Results: Twenty-four candidate investment appraisal attributes were identified and seven relevant frameworks were selected for review. Analysis of these frameworks led to the refinement of the candidate attributes to 23 final attributes, and each framework was compared against them. No individual framework adequately addressed sufficient attributes. A new framework was developed that addressed all 23 final attributes. Conclusions: A new evidence-based investment appraisal framework has been developed that provides a practical, business case focus for use in resource-constrained African settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean C. Broomhead & Maurice Mars & Richard E. Scott, 2024. "Appraising eHealth Investment for Africa: Scoping Review and Development of a Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(10), pages 1-27, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:10:p:1277-:d:1485649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/10/1277/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/10/1277/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gillian Vesty & Olga Kokshagina & Miia Jansson & France Cheong & Kerryn Butler-Henderson, 2022. "Accounting, valuing and investing in health care: dealing with outdated accounting models," Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(1), pages 52-77, February.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. Brown, H P, 1969. "The Present Theory of Investment Appraisal: A Critical Analysis," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 31(2), pages 105-131, May.
    4. Ebba Sjögren & Karin Fernler, 2019. "Accounting and professional work in established NPM settings," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(3), pages 897-922, May.
    5. repec:eme:aaaj00:aaaj-06-2015-2096 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    2. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    4. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    5. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    6. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    8. Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Amanda L. Neil & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle C. Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia: Construction and Validation of a State-Transition Cost-Effectiveness Model," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 37-51, March.
    9. Christopher Fitzpatrick & Katherine Floyd, 2012. "A Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, January.
    10. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    11. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    12. Ching-Yun Wei & Ruben G. W. Quek & Guillermo Villa & Shravanthi R. Gandra & Carol A. Forbes & Steve Ryder & Nigel Armstrong & Sohan Deshpande & Steven Duffy & Jos Kleijnen & Peter Lindgren, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Outcomes-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lipid-Lowering Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 297-318, March.
    13. Jose L Burgos & Thomas L Patterson & Joshua S Graff-Zivin & James G Kahn & M Gudelia Rangel & M Remedios Lozada & Hugo Staines & Steffanie A Strathdee, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Sexual and Injection Risk Reduction Interventions among Female Sex Workers Who Inject Drugs in Two Very Distinct Mexican Border Cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    14. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    15. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    16. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2013. "Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Susan Griffin & Helen Weatherly & Gerry Richardson & Mike Drummond, 2008. "Methodological issues in undertaking independent cost-effectiveness analysis for NICE: the case of therapies for ADHD," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(2), pages 137-145, May.
    18. William Wong & Josh Carlson & Rahber Thariani & David Veenstra, 2010. "Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(11), pages 1001-1013, November.
    19. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.
    20. G. Sagoo & S. Mohammed & G. Barton & G. Norbury & J. Ahn & C. Ogilvie & M. Kroese, 2015. "Cost Effectiveness of Using Array-CGH for Diagnosing Learning Disability," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 421-432, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:10:p:1277-:d:1485649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.