IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i1p125-138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Valerio Benedetto

    (Synthesis, Economic Evaluation and Decision Science (SEEDS) Group, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Unit, Applied Health Research hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK
    Methodological 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)

  • Luís Filipe

    (Methodological 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
    Department of Health Research, Faculty of Health & Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Lancashire, UK)

  • Catherine Harris

    (Synthesis, Economic Evaluation and Decision Science (SEEDS) Group, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Unit, Applied Health Research hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK
    Methodological 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)

  • Joseph Spencer

    (Methodological 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
    Research Facilitation and Delivery Unit (RFDU), Applied Health Research hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK)

  • Carmel Hickson

    (Public Advisers’ Forum, National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC), Liverpool, Merseyside, UK)

  • Andrew Clegg

    (Synthesis, Economic Evaluation and Decision Science (SEEDS) Group, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Unit, Applied Health Research hub, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK
    Methodological 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)

Abstract

Background Digital 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. Conclusions This 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerio Benedetto & Luís Filipe & Catherine Harris & Joseph Spencer & Carmel Hickson & Andrew Clegg, 2023. "Analytical Frameworks and Outcome Measures in Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions: A Methodological Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 125-138, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:125-138
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221132741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221132741
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221132741?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:125-138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.