Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:09:18.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A MODEL FOR ASSESSMENT OF TELEMEDICINE APPLICATIONS: MAST

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2012

Kristian Kidholm ,
Anne Granstrøm Ekeland ,
Lise Kvistgaard Jensen ,
Janne Rasmussen ,
Claus Duedal Pedersen ,
Alison Bowes ,
Signe Agnes Flottorp  and
Mickael Bech
Kristian Kidholm
Affiliation:
Odense University [email protected]
Anne Granstrøm Ekeland
Affiliation:
Norwegian Center for Intergrated Care and Telemedicine
Lise Kvistgaard Jensen
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
Janne Rasmussen
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
Claus Duedal Pedersen
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
Alison Bowes
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Signe Agnes Flottorp
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Mickael Bech
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Telemedicine applications could potentially solve many of the challenges faced by the healthcare sectors in Europe. However, a framework for assessment of these technologies is need by decision makers to assist them in choosing the most efficient and cost-effective technologies. Therefore in 2009 the European Commission initiated the development of a framework for assessing telemedicine applications, based on the users’ need for information for decision making. This article presents the Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine applications (MAST) developed in this study.

Methods: MAST was developed through workshops with users and stakeholders of telemedicine.

Results: Based on the workshops and using the EUnetHTA Core HTA Model as a starting point a three-element model was developed, including: (i) preceding considerations, (ii) multidisciplinary assessment, and (iii) transferability assessment. In the multidisciplinary assessment, the outcomes of telemedicine applications comprise seven domains, based on the domains in the EUnetHTA model.

Conclusions: MAST provides a structure for future assessment of telemedicine applications. MAST will be tested during 2010–13 in twenty studies of telemedicine applications in nine European countries in the EC project Renewing Health.

Keywords

Telemedicine applicationHTAEUnetHTAAssessment model
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 44 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Arlbjørn, JS. Process optimization with simple means: The power of visualization. Ind Commer Train. 2011;43:151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Barlow, J. Building an evidence base for successful telecare implementation – updated report of the Evidence Working Group of the Telecare Policy Collaborative chaired by James Barlow—November 2006. http://www.ssiacymru.org.uk/media/pdf/f/4/APPENDIX_B_CSIP_Telecare.pdf. (accessed August 1, 2011)Google Scholar
3.Commission Communication: Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and societies. COM/2008/689 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0689:FIN:EN:PDF. (accessed August 1, 2011)Google Scholar
4.CONSORT statement for RCTs. http://www.consort-statement.org/.Google Scholar
5.Craig, P, Dieppe, P, Macintyre, S, Mitchie, S, Nazareth, I, Mark, P. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;33:979–983.Google Scholar
6.Currell, R, Urquhart, C, Wainwright, P, et al. Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: Effects on professional practice and health outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD002098.Google Scholar
7.Drummond, M, Griffin, A, Tarricone, R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs – same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Drummond, M, Manca, A, Sculpher, M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:165–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Egger, M, Smith, GD, Altman, D, eds. Systematic reviews in health care. Meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Ekeland, AG, Bowes, A, Flottorp, S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2010;79:736–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.EUnetHTA. HTA Adaptation toolkit – work package 5. October 2008. http://www.eunethta.eu/upload/WP5/EUnetHTA_HTA_Adaptation_Toolkit_October08.pdf. (accessed August 1, 2011)Google Scholar
12.Hailey, D, Roine, R, Ohinmaa, A. Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8 (Suppl 1):1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Hersh, WR, Helfand, M, Wallace, J, et al. Clinical outcomes resulting from telemedicine intervention: A systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Hersch, WR, Hickam, DH, Severance, SM, Dana, TL, Krages, KP, Helfand, M. Telemedicine for the Medicare population: Update. 2006 Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 131 (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0024.) AHRQ Publication No. 06-E007. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
15.Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, Garrido, MV, et al. The HTA Core Model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Lampe, K, Anttila, H, Pasternack, I. HTA core model handbook. https://fio.stakes.fi/htacore/handbook.html (accessed February 18, 2009).Google Scholar
17.MAST-Manual. http://www.renewinghealth.eu/project-overview/overview/assessment-method. (accessed August 1, 2011)Google Scholar
18.Ohinmaa, A, Hailey, D, Roine, R. Elements for assessment of telemedicine applications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:190–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Scott, RE, McCarthy, FG, Jennett, PA, et al. Telehealth outcomes: A synthesis of the literature and recommendations for outcome indicators. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13 (Suppl 2):1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Scriven, M.Evaluation thesaurus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.Google Scholar
21.Simera, I, Moher, D, Hirst, A, et al. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: Reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8:24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Taylor, P. Evaluating telemedicine systems and services. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11:167–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.The Lewin Group, Inc. Assessment of approaches to evaluating telemedicine. Prepared for: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services. Contract Number: HHS-10-97-0012, 2000.Google Scholar
24.Whitten, PS, Mair, FS, Haycox, A, May, CR, Williams, TL, Hellmich, S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. Br Med J. 2002;324:1434–1437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Kidholm et al. supplementary material

Supplementary data 1

Download Kidholm et al. supplementary material(File)
File 83.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kidholm et al. supplementary material

Supplementary data 2

Download Kidholm et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.5 MB