MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954213477 · doi:10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5

The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation

2019· review· en· W2954213477 on OpenAlexaff
Ṣẹ̀yẹ Abímbọ́lá, Sarah Keelan, Michael Everett, Kim Casburn, Michelle Mitchell, Katherine Burchfield, Alexandra Martiniuk

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics Review · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSydney Medical SchoolNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsTelehealthDigital healthMeasure (data warehouse)Health economicsHealth services researchHealth administrationHealth informaticsValue (mathematics)TelemedicineDigital advertisingPublic healthHealth care managementBusinessHealth careKnowledge managementComputer scienceMedicineMarketingNursingEconomicsData miningSocial media marketingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By what measure should a policy maker choose between two mediums that deliver the same or similar message or service? Between, say, video consultation or a remote patient monitoring application (i.e. patient-facing digital health innovations) and in-person consultation? To answer this question, we sought to identify measures which are used in randomised controlled trials. But first we used two theories to frame the effects of patient-facing digital health innovations on - 1) transaction costs (i.e. the effort, time and costs required to complete a clinical interaction); and 2) process outcomes and clinical outcomes along the care cascade or information value chain, such that the 'value of information' (VoI) is different at each point in the care cascade or value chain. From the trials, we identified three categories of measures: outcome (process or clinical), satisfaction, and cost. We found that although patient-facing digital health innovations tend to confer much of their value by altering process outcomes, satisfaction, and transaction costs, these measures are inconsistently assessed. Efforts to determine the relative value of and choose between mediums of service delivery should adopt a metric (i.e. mathematical combination of measures) that capture all dimensions of value. We argue that 'value of information' (VoI) is such a metric - it is calculated as the difference between the 'expected utility' (EU) of alternative options. But for patient-facing digital health innovations, 'expected utility' (EU) should incorporate the probability of achieving not only a clinical outcome, but also process outcomes (depending on the innovation under consideration); and the measures of utility should include satisfaction and transaction costs; and also changes in population access to services, and health system capacity to deliver more services, which may result from reduction in transaction costs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Economics ReviewSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207