Health economic evaluation of preventive digital public health interventions using decision-analytic modelling: a systematized review

Oliver Lange1
1Department of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Tóm tắt

AbstractBackground

Digital public health (DiPH) provides novel approaches for prevention, potentially leading to long-term health benefits in resource-limited health systems. However, cost-effectiveness of DiPH interventions is unclear. This systematized review investigates the use of decision-analytic modelling in health economic evaluations of DiPH primary prevention and health promotion interventions, focusing on intervention’s design, methods used, results, and reporting quality.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies of decision-analytic economic evaluations of digital interventions in primary prevention or health promotion, published up to June 2022. Intervention characteristics and selected items were extracted based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were then extracted and price-adjusted to compare the economic evaluation results. Finally, the included studies’ reporting quality was assessed by building a score using CHEERS.

Results

The database search (including search update) produced 2,273 hits. After removing duplicates, 1,434 titles and abstracts were screened. Of the 89 studies meeting the full-text search criteria, 14 were ultimately reviewed. The most common targets were physical activity (five studies) and weight loss (four). Digital applications include text messages, web-based inventions, app-based interventions, e-learning devices, and the promotion of smartphone apps. The mean ICER of the 12 studies using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) is €20,955 per QALY (min. − €3,949; max. €114,211). The mean of reported CHEERS items per study is 81% (min. 59%; max. 91%).

Conclusions

This review only includes primary prevention and health promotion, and thus excludes other DiPH fields (e.g. secondary prevention). It also focuses on decision-analytic models, excluding study-based economic evaluations. Standard methods of economic evaluation could be adapted more to the specifics of DiPH by measuring the effectiveness of more current technologies through alternative methods, incorporating a societal perspective, and more clearly defining comparators. Nevertheless, the review demonstrates using common thresholds that the new field of DiPH shows potential for cost-effective preventive interventions.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

World Health Organization. Essential public health functions, health systems and health security: developing conceptual clarity and a WHO roadmap for action. 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272597. Accessed 15 Sept 2022.

Wienert J, Jahnel T, Maass L. What are Digital Public Health Interventions? First Steps Toward a Definition and an Intervention Classification Framework. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(6): e31921.

Odone A, Buttigieg S, Ricciardi W, Azzopardi-Muscat N, Staines A. Public health digitalization in Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz161.

Zeeb H, Pigeot I, Schüz B, Leibniz-WissenschaftsCampus Digital Public Health B. [Digital public health-an overview]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-019-03078-7.

Department of Health and Social Care. Prevention is better than cure: our vision to help you live well for longer 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/753688/Prevention_is_better_than_cure_5-11.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2021.

National Institute for Health Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7. Accessed 17 Aug 2021.

Claxton K, Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 2006.

Edwards RT, McIntosh E. Applied health economics for public health practice and research: Oxford University Press; 2019.

Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.8.2.165.

McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics.2008; https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.010.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067975.

Rinaldi G, Hijazi A, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. Diabetes Res ClinPract. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108084.

Paganini S, Teigelkötter W, Buntrock C, Baumeister H. Economic evaluations of internet- and mobile-based interventions for the treatment and prevention of depression: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.018.

Dubas-Jakóbczyk K, Kocot E, Kissimova-Skarbek K, Huter K, Rothgang H. Economic evaluation of health promotion and primary prevention actions for older people-a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2017; doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx030.

Tate DF, Finkelstein EA, Khavjou O, Gustafson A, Tate DF, Finkelstein EA, et al. Cost effectiveness of internet interventions: review and recommendations. Ann Behav Med. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9131-6.

Fischer F. [Digital interventions in prevention and health promotion: What kind of evidence do we have and what is needed?] Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-020-03143-6.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

OECD. Purchasing power parities (PPP). 2021.https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/data/1290ee5a-en. Accessed 10 Jan 2021.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration. Value Health. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002.

Hubben GAA, Bos JM, Glynn DM, van der Ende A, van Alphen L, Postma MJ. Enhanced decision support for policy makers using a web interface to health-economic models - Illustrated with a cost-effectiveness analysis of nation-wide infant vaccination with the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the Netherlands. Vaccine. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.01.088.

Luxton DD, Hansen RN, Stanfill K. Mobile app self-care versus in-office care for stress reduction: a cost minimization analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x14555616.

Graves N, Barnett AG, Halton KA, Veerman JL, Winkler E, Owen N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a telephone-delivered intervention for physical activity and diet. PLoS One. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007135.

Pil L, Pauwels K, Muijzers E, Portzky G, Annemans L. Cost-effectiveness of a helpline for suicide prevention. J Telemed Telecare. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X13495487.

Smit F, Lokkerbol J, Riper H, Majo MC, Boon B, Blankers M. Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Health Care Systems for Alcohol Use Disorders: How Implementation of eHealth Interventions Improves Cost-Effectiveness. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3): e56.

Smith KJ, Kuo S, Zgibor JC, McTigue KM, Hess R, Bhargava T, et al. Cost effectiveness of an internet-delivered lifestyle intervention in primary care patients with high cardiovascular risk. Prev Med. 2016;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.036.

Patel B, Peiris DP, Patel A, Jan S, Harris MF, Usherwood T, et al. A computer-guided quality improvement tool for primary health care: cost-effectiveness analysis based on TORPEDO trial data. Med J Aust. 2020; https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50667.

Burn E, Marshall AL, Miller YD, Barnett AG, Fjeldsoe BS, Graves N. The cost-effectiveness of the MobileMums intervention to increase physical activity among mothers with young children: a Markov model informed by a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007226.

Cobiac LJ, Vos T, Barendregt JJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Physical Activity: A Modelling Study. PLoS Med. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000110.

Peels DA, Hoogenveen RR, Feenstra TL, Golsteijn RH, Bolman C, Mudde AN, et al. Long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention among people aged over fifty: modelling the results of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1099.

Rondina R, Hong M, Sarma S, Mitchell M. Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1950.

Mizdrak A, Telfer K, Direito A, Cobiac LJ, Blakely T, Cleghorn CL, et al. Health Gain, Cost Impacts, and Cost-Effectiveness of a Mass Media Campaign to Promote Smartphone Apps for Physical Activity: Modeling Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020; https://doi.org/10.2196/18014.

Goryakin Y, Aldea A, Lerouge A, Romano Spica V, Nante N, Vuik S, et al. Promoting sport and physical activity in Italy: a cost-effectiveness analysis of seven innovative public health policies. Ann Ig. 2019; https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2019.2321.

Miners A, Harris J, Felix L, Murray E, Michie S, Edwards P. An economic evaluation of adaptive e-learning devices to promote weight loss via dietary change for people with obesity. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-190.

Cleghorn C, Wilson N, Nair N, Kvizhinadze G, Nghiem N, McLeod M, et al. Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness From Promoting Smartphone Apps for Weight Loss: Multistate Life Table Modeling. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth. 2019; https://doi.org/10.2196/11118.

Jones AC, Grout L, Wilson N, Nghiem N, Cleghorn C. The Cost-effectiveness of a Mass Media Campaign to Promote Smartphone Apps for Weight Loss: Updated Modeling Study. JMIR Form Res. 2022; https://doi.org/10.2196/29291.

Guerriero C, Cairns J, Roberts I, Rodgers A, Whittaker R, Free C. The cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation support delivered by mobile phone text messaging: Txt2stop. Eur J Health Econ. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-012-0424-5.

Cobos-Campos R, Mar J, Apinaniz A, de Lafuente AS, Parraza N, Aizpuru F, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of text messaging to support health advice for smoking cessation. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00262-y.

Cheung KL, Wijnen BFM, Hiligsmann M, Coyle K, Coyle D, Pokhrel S, et al. Is it cost-effective to provide internet-based interventions to complement the current provision of smoking cessation services in the Netherlands? An analysis based on the EQUIPTMOD. Addiction. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14069.

Kruger J, Brennan A, Strong M, Thomas C, Norman P, Epton T. The cost-effectiveness of a theory-based online health behaviour intervention for new university students: an economic evaluation. BMC Public Health. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1011.

Song M, Kanaoka H. Effectiveness of mobile application for menstrual management of working women in Japan: randomized controlled trial and medical economic evaluation. J Med Econ. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1515082.

Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, Claxton K, Buxton M, Akehurst R, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1258/135581907779497567.

Tate DF, Finkelstein EA, Khavjou O, Gustafson A. Cost Effectiveness of Internet Interventions: Review and Recommendations. Ann Behav Med. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9131-6.

de la Torre-Diez I, Lopez-Coronado M, Vaca C, Aguado JS, de Castro C. Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Telemedicine, Electronic, and Mobile Health Systems in the Literature: A Systematic Review. Telemedicine and E-Health. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0053.

Ghani Z, Jarl J, Berglund JS, Andersson M, Anderberg P. The Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) Interventions for Older Adults: Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155290.

Sanyal C, Stolee P, Juzwishin D, Husereau D. Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198112.

Iribarren SJ, Cato K, Falzon L, Stone PW. What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions. PLoS One. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170581.

Law L, Kelly JT, Savill H, Wallen MP, Hickman IJ, Erku D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered diet and exercise interventions: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x211070721.

Kravitz R, Duan N DMCN-o-GP. Design and Implementation of N-of-1 Trials: A User’s Guide. 2014. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/n-1-trials_research-2014-5.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2022.

Haddix AC, Teutsch SM, Corso PS. Prevention effectiveness: a guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation: Oxford University Press; 2002.

Agrawal S, Wojtanowski AC, Tringali L, Foster GD, Finkelstein EA. Financial implications of New York City's weight management initiative. PLoS One. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246621.

Zurovac D, Larson BA, Sudoi RK, Snow RW. Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of a Mobile Phone Text-Message Reminder Programmes to Improve Health Workers' Adherence to Malaria Guidelines in Kenya. PLoS One. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052045.

Shields GE, Elvidge J. Challenges in synthesising cost-effectiveness estimates. Systematic Reviews. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01536-x.

Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.

Lange O, Plath J, Dziggel TF, Karpa DF, Keil M, Becker T, et al. A Transparency Checklist for Carbon Footprint Calculations Applied within a Systematic Review of Virtual Care Interventions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(12):7474.