Author
Listed:
- Caitlin Main
(Department of Health Policy and Medical Technology Research Group, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK)
- Madeleine Haig
(Department of Health Policy and Medical Technology Research Group, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK)
- Danitza Chavez
(Department of Health Policy and Medical Technology Research Group, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK)
- Panos Kanavos
(Department of Health Policy and Medical Technology Research Group, LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK)
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.
Suggested Citation
Caitlin Main & Madeleine Haig & Danitza Chavez & Panos Kanavos, 2024.
"Assessing the Value of Provider-Facing Digital Health Technologies Used in Chronic Disease Management: Toward a Value Framework Based on Multistakeholder Perceptions,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 28-41, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:28-41
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231206803
Download full text from publisher
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:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:28-41. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.