Qualitative Content Analysis of Secondary Digital Health Terms – Are They Sufficient for Health Outcomes Research Purposes?
Author(s)
Zrubka Z1, Champion A2, Holtorf AP3, Di Bidino R4, Earla JR5, Boltyenkov A6, Tabata-Kelly M7, Asche C8, Burrell A9
1Óbuda University, Budapest, PE, Hungary, 2Healthcare Research Insights, Inc, Lake Forest, IL, USA, 3Health Outcomes Strategies GmbH, Basel, Switzerland, 4Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, RM, Italy, 5Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA, 6Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc., Malvern, PA, USA, 7Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA, 8University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 9Anita Burrell Consulting LLC, Flemington, NJ, USA
OBJECTIVES: A previous review of umbrella Digital-Health Term (DHT) definitions (digital health, eHealth, mHealth, telehealth/telemedicine) found they conveyed insufficient information about patient value for use in health economics and outcomes research (HEOR). To investigate whether secondary DHTs (e.g., telesurgery, teleradiology) were more useful, we performed a qualitative content analysis of their definitions.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, EconLit 2015-2020) for systematic reviews containing definitions of DHTs using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Secondary DHTs and their definitions were extracted and consolidated by pairs of reviewers using uniform rules. Each definition was reviewed for explicit or implicit information about 24 categories from: PICOTS (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, setting), Shannon-Weaver information model (SWE) (sender, message, encoder, channel, decoder, receiver, extended with mode of information exchange), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) quality domains (safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient, equitable), World Health Organization (WHO) classification of digital health interventions v1.0 (digital health interventions, health system challenges, system categories) and information related to applied technology or geographic scope. Descriptive statistics were developed.
RESULTS: Across 107 unique definitions of 73 secondary DHTs, the number of (explicitly or implicitly) addressed categories across the frameworks ranged from 0 to 15 and not addressed categories from 9 to 24. The percentages of definitions with any (explicit or implicit) / no content or information were PICOTS 79.4% / 20.6% , SWE 90.7% / 9.3% , AHRQ 30.8% / 69.2%, applied technology 52.3% / 47.7% , geographic scope 0.0% / 100.0%, and WHO frameworks 86.9% / 13.1%. Intervention, message, technology and system category were specified in over half of the definitions.
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary DHT definitions do not adequately specify PICOTS, or other characteristics of interest for HEOR studies. Additional research is required to classify digital health interventions for accurate evidence summaries and value assessments.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 25, Issue 12S (December 2022)
Code
MT22
Topic
Medical Technologies, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Literature Review & Synthesis
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas