Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36259354›Full record

SynthesisMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2023

Analytical Frameworks and Outcome Measures in Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions: A Methodological Systematic Review.

Valerio Benedetto, Luís Filipe, Catherine Harris, Joseph Spencer, Carmel Hickson, Andrew Clegg

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Valerio BenedettoSynthesis, Economic Evaluation and Decision Science (SEEDS) Group, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Unit, Applied Health Research hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4683-0777
Luís FilipeMethodological Innovation, Development, Adaptation and Support (MIDAS) Theme, National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC), Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Catherine HarrisSynthesis, Economic Evaluation and Decision Science (SEEDS) Group, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Unit, Applied Health Research hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7763-830X
Joseph SpencerMethodological Innovation, Development, Adaptation and Support (MIDAS) Theme, National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC), Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Carmel HicksonPublic Advisers' Forum, National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC), Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Andrew CleggSynthesis, Economic Evaluation and Decision Science (SEEDS) Group, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Unit, Applied Health Research hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK.
University of Lancashire · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) can improve the provision of health care services. To fully account for their effects in economic evaluations, traditional methods based on measuring health-related quality of life may not be appropriate, as nonhealth and process outcomes are likely to be relevant too. PURPOSE: This systematic review identifies, assesses, and synthesizes the arguments on the analytical frameworks and outcome measures used in the economic evaluations of DHIs. The results informed recommendations for future economic evaluations. DATA SOURCES: We ran searches on multiple databases, complemented by gray literature and backward and forward citation searches. STUDY SELECTION: We included records containing theoretical and empirical arguments associated with the use of analytical frameworks and outcome measures for economic evaluations of DHIs. Following title/abstract and full-text screening, our final analysis included 15 studies. DATA EXTRACTION: The arguments we extracted related to analytical frameworks (14 studies), generic outcome measures (5 studies), techniques used to elicit utility values (3 studies), and disease-specific outcome measures and instruments to collect health states data (both from 2 studies). DATA SYNTHESIS: Rather than assessing the quality of the studies, we critically assessed and synthesized the extracted arguments. Building on this synthesis, we developed a 3-stage set of recommendations in which we encourage the use of impact matrices and analyses of equity impacts to integrate traditional economic evaluation methods. LIMITATIONS: Our review and recommendations explored but not fully covered other potentially important aspects of economic evaluations that were outside our scope.

conclusionsThis is the first systematic review that summarizes the arguments on how the effects of DHIs could be measured in economic evaluations. Our recommendations will help design future economic evaluations. HIGHLIGHTS: Using traditional outcome measures based on health-related quality of life (such as the quality-adjusted life-year) may not be appropriate in economic evaluations of digital health interventions, which are likely to trigger nonhealth and process outcomes.This is the first systematic review to investigate how the effects of digital health interventions could be measured in economic evaluations.We extracted and synthesized different arguments from the literature, outlining advantages and disadvantages associated with different methods used to measure the effects of digital health interventions.We propose a methodological set of recommendations in which 1) we suggest that researchers consider the use of impact matrices and cost-consequence analysis, 2) we discuss the suitability of analytical frameworks and outcome measures available in economic evaluations, and 3) we highlight the need for analyses of equity impacts.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life Yearscost-effectiveness analysisdigital healtheconomic evaluationsoutcome measuresQALY

Identifiers

PMID36259354
PMCPMC9742632
OpenAlexW4306777536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.