Abimbola Seye, Keelan Sarah, Everett Michael, Casburn Kim, Mitchell Michelle, Burchfield Katherine, Martiniuk Alexandra
School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Royal Far West, Sydney, Australia.
Health Econ Rev. 2019 Jul 3;9(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5.
By what measure should a policy maker choose between two mediums that deliver the same or similar message or service? Between, say, video consultation or a remote patient monitoring application (i.e. patient-facing digital health innovations) and in-person consultation? To answer this question, we sought to identify measures which are used in randomised controlled trials. But first we used two theories to frame the effects of patient-facing digital health innovations on - 1) transaction costs (i.e. the effort, time and costs required to complete a clinical interaction); and 2) process outcomes and clinical outcomes along the care cascade or information value chain, such that the 'value of information' (VoI) is different at each point in the care cascade or value chain. From the trials, we identified three categories of measures: outcome (process or clinical), satisfaction, and cost. We found that although patient-facing digital health innovations tend to confer much of their value by altering process outcomes, satisfaction, and transaction costs, these measures are inconsistently assessed. Efforts to determine the relative value of and choose between mediums of service delivery should adopt a metric (i.e. mathematical combination of measures) that capture all dimensions of value. We argue that 'value of information' (VoI) is such a metric - it is calculated as the difference between the 'expected utility' (EU) of alternative options. But for patient-facing digital health innovations, 'expected utility' (EU) should incorporate the probability of achieving not only a clinical outcome, but also process outcomes (depending on the innovation under consideration); and the measures of utility should include satisfaction and transaction costs; and also changes in population access to services, and health system capacity to deliver more services, which may result from reduction in transaction costs.
政策制定者应依据何种标准在两种传递相同或相似信息或服务的媒介之间做出选择呢?比如说,在视频会诊或远程患者监测应用程序(即面向患者的数字健康创新)与面对面会诊之间如何抉择?为回答这个问题,我们试图找出随机对照试验中所使用的衡量标准。但首先,我们运用两种理论来阐述面向患者的数字健康创新所产生的影响:一是交易成本(即完成一次临床互动所需的精力、时间和成本);二是沿医疗级联或信息价值链的过程结果和临床结果,如此一来,“信息价值”(VoI)在医疗级联或价值链的每个节点都是不同的。从这些试验中,我们确定了三类衡量标准:结果(过程或临床)、满意度和成本。我们发现,尽管面向患者的数字健康创新往往通过改变过程结果、满意度和交易成本来体现其大部分价值,但这些衡量标准的评估并不一致。确定服务提供媒介的相对价值并在它们之间做出选择的努力,应该采用一种能够涵盖价值所有维度的指标(即衡量标准的数学组合)。我们认为,“信息价值”(VoI)就是这样一种指标——它被计算为替代选项的“预期效用”(EU)之间的差值。但对于面向患者的数字健康创新而言,“预期效用”(EU)不仅应纳入实现临床结果的概率,还应纳入过程结果的概率(取决于所考虑的创新);效用的衡量标准应包括满意度和交易成本;此外,还应包括因交易成本降低可能导致的人群服务可及性变化以及卫生系统提供更多服务的能力变化。