Identifying the Value of an eHealth Intervention Aimed at Cognitive Impairments: Observational Study in Different Contexts and Service Models

Abstract

Background Value is one of the central concepts in health care, but it is vague within the field of summative eHealth evaluations. Moreover, the role of context in explaining the value is underexplored, and there is no explicit framework guiding the evaluation of the value of eHealth interventions. Hence, different studies conceptualize and operationalize value in different ways. Objective The objective of our study is to identify contextual factors that determine similarities and differences in the value of an eHealth intervention between 2 contexts. We also aim to reflect on and contribute to the discussion about the specification, assessment, and relativity of the “value” concept in the evaluation of eHealth interventions. Methods The study concerned a 6-month eHealth intervention targeted at elderly patients (n=107) diagnosed with cognitive impairment in Italy and Sweden. The intervention introduced a case manager role and an eHealth platform to provide remote monitoring and coaching services to the patients. A model for evaluating the value of eHealth interventions was designed as monetary and nonmonetary benefits and sacrifices, based on the value conceptualizations in eHealth and marketing literature. The data was collected using the Mini–Mental State Examination (MMSE), the clock drawing test, and the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and health care professionals. Monetary data was collected from the health care and technology providers. Results The value of an eHealth intervention applied to similar types of populations but differed in different contexts. In Sweden, patients improved cognitive performance (MMSE mean 0.85, SD 1.62, P<.001), reduced anxiety (EQ-5D-5L mean 0.16, SD 0.54, P=.046), perceived their health better (EQ-5D-5L VAS scale mean 2.6, SD 9.7, P=.035), and both patients and health care professionals were satisfied with the care. However, the Swedish service model demonstrated an increased cost, higher workload for health care professionals, and the intervention was not cost-efficient. In Italy, the patients were satisfied with the care received, and the health care professionals felt empowered and had an acceptable workload. Moreover, the intervention was cost-effective. However, clinical efficacy and quality of life improvements have not been observed. We identified 6 factors that influence the value of eHealth intervention in a particular context: (1) service delivery design of the intervention (process of delivery), (2) organizational setup of the intervention (ie, organizational structure and professionals involved), (3) cost of different treatments, (4) hourly rates of staff for delivering the intervention, (5) lifestyle habits of the population (eg, how physically active they were in their daily life and if they were living alone or with family), and (6) local preferences on the quality of patient care. Conclusions Value in the assessments of eHealth interventions need to be considered beyond economic terms, perceptions, or behavior changes. To obtain a holistic view of the value created, it needs to be operationalized into monetary and nonmonetary outcomes, categorizing these into benefits and sacrifices.

Health Care Professionals’ Experiences and Views of eHealth in Pediatric Care: Qualitative Interview Study Applying a Theoretical Framework for Implementation

“…Organizations that depend on resources provided by research and development projects to engage in new eHealth technologies risk adding extra workload to staff. In this perspective, it is important to be able to identify the true value of eHealth beyond economic terms [ 30 ].…”

Measuring Mobile Phone Application Usability for Anticoagulation from the Perspective of Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Professionals

“…The usability or value of mHealth techniques assessment was multidimensional. Six factors have been suggested to influence the value of mHealth intervention: the process of service delivery, organizational structure and professionals involved, cost of different treatments, burden of staff for delivering the intervention, lifestyle habits of the population, and local preferences on the quality of patient care [ 34 ]. The present study highlighted a need to develop consensus from different experts to empower patients’ self-management of health and medication uses (i.e., the attributes of health information) using the mHealth technology.…”

Teleconsultations for mental health: Recommendations from a Delphi panel

“…Indeed, teleconsultations have the potential to provide wider access to care to people living in remote areas, without obliging patients to move to specialized centers for assessment and care, thus improving cost-time savings and quality of life ( Naslund et al, 2022 ). Several telemedicine systems have been developed ( Zeghari et al, 2022 ; Chessa et al, 2021 ; Jurkeviciute et al, 2020 ), and there is some research-based evidence on their usability and usefulness, reporting sometimes conflicting results ( Chan et al, 2015 ; Hilty et al, 2002 ; Monnier et al, 2003 ; Sharma and Devan, 2021 ), with some attempts to generalize telemedicine to everyday clinical practice ( Das et al, 2020 ; Math et al, 2021 ).…”