Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:07:27.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VP31 Health Technology Assessment Evidence On E-Health/M-Health Technologies: Fields For Improvement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2018

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:

Evaluation is crucial for integration of e-Health/m-Health applications into healthcare systems and their further sustainability. However, evaluation of these technologies is often challenged by poor quality of research design, lack of common outcome indicators and no consensus on appropriate methodology. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) could offer a sound methodological basis for these evaluations (1). The aim of this study was to look for HTA reports on e-Health/m-Health technologies and to describe their characteristics and analyze transparency, consistency and thoroughness, with the goal to detect fields for improvements.

METHODS:

A literature search was performed on PubMed, ISI WOS and University of York – Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) electronic databases, in order to identify reports that had evaluated e-Health/m-Health technologies, published until 1 April 2016. We used the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) checklist (2) to evaluate transparency and consistency of included reports. We also assessed thoroughness of reports by checking the presence of the domains suggested by European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) HTA Core Model (3).

RESULTS:

Twenty-eight reports published between 1999 and 2015 were included. Most of reports (71.4 percent) were delivered by non-European countries and only 35.7 percent were classified as full reports. E-Health/m-Health technologies from several fields of medicine, mostly cardiology (21.4 percent) and psychiatry (17.9 percent) were evaluated. Policy question was clearly defined in 32.1 percent of reports, whereas ethical (21.4 percent) and legal implications (3.6 percent) were domains with the least presence. With respect to the EUnetHTA Core Model, around 70 percent of reports dealt with effectiveness and economic evaluation, more than 50 percent described health problem and around 40 percent organizational and social aspects. Remaining domains were evaluated in very few reports.

CONCLUSIONS:

E-Health/m-Health technologies are increasingly present in the field of HTA. Our work identified a number of elements not being included in the available reports. Several reports missed to respond to relevant assessment elements especially ethical, social and organizational implications. There is a need for strengthening and standardizing methods used for the evaluation of these technologies.

Type
Vignette Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

References

REFERENCES:

1. Gagnon, M-P, Scott, RE. Striving for evidence in e-health evaluation: lessons from health technology assessment. J Telemed Telecare [Internet]. 2005;11 Suppl 2(28):S34–6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16375790CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. INAHTA. A checklist for health technology assessment reports. 2007;(August):1–7. Available from: http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/INAHTA_HTA_Checklist_English.pdfGoogle Scholar
3. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. HTA Core Model for Diagnostic Technologies 1.0R. 2008;1–176. Available from: https://meka.thl.fi/htacore/model/HTA%20Core%20Model%20for%20Diagnostic%20Technologies%201.0r.pdfGoogle Scholar