Stakeholder preferences for attributes of digital health technologies to consider in health service funding

Abstract

Objectives Health service providers are currently making decisions on the public funding of digital health technologies (DHTs) for managing chronic diseases with limited understanding of stakeholder preferences for DHT attributes. This study aims to understand the community, patient/carer, and health professionals’ preferences to help inform a prioritized list of evaluation criteria. Methods An online best–worst scaling survey was conducted in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom to ascertain the relative importance of twenty-four DHT attributes among stakeholder groups using an efficient incomplete block design. The attributes were identified from a systematic review of DHT evaluation frameworks for consideration in a health technology assessment. Results were analyzed with multinomial models by stakeholder group and latent class. Results A total of 1,251 participants completed the survey (576 general community members, 543 patients/carers, and 132 health professionals). Twelve attributes achieved a preference score above 50 percent in the stakeholder group model, predominantly related to safety but also covering technical features, effectiveness, ethics, and economics. Results from the latent class model supported this prioritization. Overall, connectedness with the patient’s healthcare team seemed the most important; with “Helps health professionals respond quickly when changes in patient care are needed” as the most highly prioritized of all attributes. Conclusions It is proposed that these prioritized twelve attributes be considered in all evaluations of DHTs that manage chronic disease, supplemented with a limited number of attributes that reflect the specific perspective of funders, such as equity of access, cost, and system-level implementation considerations.

Under the Tech Umbrella: Assessing the Landscape of Telemedicine Innovations (Telemechron Study)

“…The overviewed studies collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape of digital health interventions with a focus on technology assessment, although not always very markedly [ 17 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. They emphasize the critical importance of systematically technologically assessing eHealth tools [ 28 ], considering TA stakeholder preferences [ 29 ], and recognizing the broader impact on well-being [ 30 ].…”

“…The overviewed studies collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape of digital health interventions with a focus on technology assessment, although not always very markedly [ 17 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. They emphasize the critical importance of systematically technologically assessing eHealth tools [ 28 ], considering TA stakeholder preferences [ 29 ], and recognizing the broader impact on well-being [ 30 ]. Specific evaluations of TA in some domains, such as the effectiveness of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation [ 31 ] and the integration of tools for peer-to-peer interactions in digital interventions for psychotic disorders [ 40 ], shed light on targeted healthcare areas.…”

“…The consideration of stakeholder preferences in digital health technologies is a recurring theme in TA. Understanding the viewpoints of key stakeholders is seen as crucial for effective resource allocation and strategic planning in the digital health landscape [ 29 ].…”

“…Von Huben et al [ 29 ] deal with the importance of TA in investigating stakeholder preferences for digital health technologies (DHTs) in managing chronic diseases, aiming to inform the prioritization of evaluation criteria. Through a best–worst scaling survey involving 1251 participants from diverse stakeholder groups, the research identifies twelve attributes deemed essential, with a focus on safety, technical features, effectiveness, ethics, and economics.…”

“…These studies are as follows: [ 17 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ].…”