Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:13:03.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

OP59 Do Digital Health Terms Provide Sufficient Information To Allow For Health Technology Assessment?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2023

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Umbrella digital health term (DHT) (digital health, eHealth, mHealth, telehealth, and telemedicine) definitions contain insufficient information about patient value for health economics and outcomes research and health technology assessment (HTA) purposes. Qualitative content analysis of secondary DHT (e.g., telesurgery and teleradiology) definitions was performed by the ISPOR Digital Health Special Interest Group to determine if they were more useful for health economics and outcomes research purposes.

Methods

Secondary DHT definitions were extracted from a previous scoping review and consolidated by reviewer pairs using uniform rules. Definitions were analyzed for explicit (directly stated) or implicit (inferred) information on 24 categories: Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, Setting (PICOTS); the Shannon-Weaver communication model (SWE) (sender, message, encoder, channel, decoder, and receiver, extended with mode of information exchange); the quality domains of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable); information related to applied technology or geographic scope; and the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of digital health interventions v1.0 (digital health interventions category, health system challenges, and system categories).

Results

Across 107 unique definitions of 73 secondary DHTs, the number of explicitly or implicitly addressed categories across the frameworks ranged from zero to 15, with references to elements of PICOTS (79.4%), SWE (90.7%), AHRQ (30.8%), applied technology (52.3%), geographic scope (0%), and WHO frameworks (86.9%). PICOTS information was found for Patients in 35 percent of definitions, Intervention in 59 percent, Comparator in 20 percent, and Outcomes in 18 percent.

Conclusions

Secondary DHT definitions do not adequately specify PICOTS or other characteristics of interest for HTA. An online Delphi survey has been launched among a wider group of ISPOR members to identify the minimum information set to define patient facing DHTs for evidence summaries and value assessments. The results of this research should be shared for discussion with other digital health stakeholder groups.

Type
Oral Presentations
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press