Department of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081BTAmsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Mental Health, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081BTAmsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Jun;36(3):204-216. doi: 10.1017/S026646232000015X. Epub 2020 Apr 16.
Traditionally, health technology assessment (HTA) focuses on assessing the impact of pharmaceutical technologies on health and care. Resources are scarce and policy makers aim to achieve effective, accessible health care. eHealth innovations are increasingly more integrated in all healthcare domains. However, how eHealth is assessed prior to its implementation in care practices is unclear. To support evidence-informed policy making, this study aimed to identify frameworks and methods for assessing eHealth's impact on health care.
The scientific literature in five bibliographical databases was systematically reviewed. Articles were included if the study was conducted in a clinical setting, used an HTA framework and assessed an eHealth service. A systematic qualitative narrative approach was applied for analysis and reporting.
Twenty-one HTA frameworks were identified in twenty-three articles. All frameworks addressed outcomes related to the technical performance and functionalities of eHealth service under assessment. The majority also addressed costs (n = 19), clinical outcomes (n = 14), organizational (n = 15) and system level aspects (n = 13). Most frameworks can be classified as dimensional (n = 13), followed by staged (n = 3), hybrid (n = 3), and business modeling frameworks (n = 2). Six frameworks specified assessment outcomes and methods.
HTA frameworks are available for a-priori impact assessment of eHealth services. The frameworks vary in assessment outcomes, methods, and specificity. Demonstrated applicability in practice is limited. Recommendations include standardization of: (i) reporting characteristics of eHealth services, and (ii) specifying assessment outcomes and methods following a stepped-approach tailored to the functional characteristics of eHealth services. Standardization might improve the quality and comparability of eHTA assessments.
传统上,卫生技术评估(HTA)侧重于评估制药技术对健康和护理的影响。资源有限,政策制定者旨在实现有效的、可及的医疗保健。电子健康创新越来越多地融入所有医疗保健领域。然而,在将电子健康应用于护理实践之前,如何对其进行评估尚不清楚。为了支持循证决策,本研究旨在确定评估电子健康对医疗保健影响的框架和方法。
系统地回顾了五个文献数据库中的科学文献。如果研究在临床环境中进行,使用 HTA 框架评估电子健康服务,则将文章纳入。应用系统的定性叙述方法进行分析和报告。
在 23 篇文章中确定了 21 个 HTA 框架。所有框架都涉及评估的电子健康服务的技术性能和功能相关的结果。大多数框架还涉及成本(n = 19)、临床结果(n = 14)、组织(n = 15)和系统水平方面(n = 13)。大多数框架可分为维度(n = 13)、阶段(n = 3)、混合(n = 3)和业务建模框架(n = 2)。六个框架规定了评估结果和方法。
可用于预先评估电子健康服务的影响的 HTA 框架。这些框架在评估结果、方法和特异性方面有所不同。在实践中的应用证明是有限的。建议包括:(i)报告电子健康服务的特征,以及(ii)根据特定于电子健康服务功能特征的逐步方法指定评估结果和方法。标准化可能会提高电子 HTA 评估的质量和可比性。