Is Dismissing Intervention Development Costs a Fallacy? a Case Study of a Digital Health Intervention E-MAT

Speaker(s)

Murphy A1, Kirby A2, De Blasio F2, McCarthy M3, Hegarty J3, Dahy D3, Davoren M3, Shiely F3, Harrington J3, Shorter G4, Murphy D3, Cooke E3, O'Mahony B3, Rovito M5, Robertson S6, Fitzgerald S3, Saab M3
1Department of Economics, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, CO, Ireland, 2University College Cork, Cork, CO, Ireland, 3University College Cork, Cork, Cork, Ireland, 4Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, 5University of Central Florida, Florida, FL, USA, 6Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, Leeds, UK

OBJECTIVES: The cost of intervention development differs to intervention implementation and maintenance and is often overlooked. Yet it requires resources and has a significant opportunity cost. Here we retrospectively cost the development of the Enhancing Men’s Awareness of Testicular Disorders (E-MAT) virtual reality (VR) intervention. E-MATVR is a 3-level educational game delivered using a VR headset with voiceover and two controllers, designed to enhance men’s awareness of testicular disorders, help-seeking intentions for testicular symptoms, and intention and behaviour to feel their testes.

METHODS: A retrospective cost analysis was undertaken from the healthcare provider perspective following national guidelines. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to estimate uncertainty around parameters and scope. Only direct costs of resources involved in the programme from the health care provider and payer perspective were included and these were identified, measured and valued. Resources consist of personnel costs and materials.

RESULTS: There were two development phases, the first was in June 2016 to April 2017, and the second phase from August 2021 to August 2022. The cost analysis estimates total development costs across two phases for E-MATVR to be €89,253.81. Phase I accounted for two-thirds of this and personnel costs accounted for approximately 90% of total costs.

CONCLUSIONS: Digital health interventions are increasingly used in public health initiatives and can be useful to capture traditionally hard to reach audiences such as young adult men. However, as this study shows developing such interventions requires significant human capital input. Traditionally dismissed as a sunk cost they have an associated opportunity cost. Given the limited resources available for research on developing and implementing public health interventions, acknowledging and estimating intervention development costs, could inform future research priority setting and resource allocation decisions.

Code

EE523

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Disease

Oncology