Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35132606›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2022

Economic Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice.

Manuel Gomes, Elizabeth Murray, James Raftery

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
24.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Analytical Frameworks and Outcome Measures in Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions: A Methodological Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Manuel GomesDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK. m.gomes@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1428-1232
Elizabeth MurrayDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
James RafteryFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Health Data Research UK · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health care interventions are increasingly being delivered through digital technologies, offering major opportunities for delivering more health gains from scarce health care resources. Digital health interventions (DHIs) raise distinct challenges for economic evaluations compared with drugs and medical devices, not least due to their interacting, evolving features. The implications of the distinctive nature of DHIs for the methodological choices underpinning their economic evaluation is not well understood. This paper provides an in-depth discussion of distinct features of DHIs and how they might impact the design, measurement, analysis and reporting of cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside both randomised and non-randomised studies. These include aspects related to choice of comparator, costs and benefits assessment, study perspective and type of economic analysis. We argue that typical methodological standpoints, such as taking a health service perspective, focusing on health-related benefits and adopting cost-utility analyses, as typically adopted in the economic evaluation of non-digital technologies (pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices), are unlikely to be appropriate for DHIs. We illustrate how these methodological aspects can be appropriately addressed in an evaluation of a digitally supported, remote rehabilitation programme for patients with Long Covid in England. We highlight several methodological considerations for improving practice and areas where further methodological work is required.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansPost-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID35132606
PMCPMC8821841
OpenAlexW4210945861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.