Ana Rita Santos, Francisco von Hafe, Filipa Sampaio, Ana Rita Londral, Julian Perelman
{"title":"数字卫生技术经济评价的制图方法:范围审查。","authors":"Ana Rita Santos, Francisco von Hafe, Filipa Sampaio, Ana Rita Londral, Julian Perelman","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are reshaping healthcare delivery, yet their diverse functionalities, dynamic nature, and non-traditional impact pathways challenge conventional economic evaluation methods. This scoping review aimed to systematically map existing frameworks for the economic evaluation of DHTs, assess their methodological components, and identify gaps to inform more robust, standardised approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Business Source Complete) and grey literature. Records published since 2015 were included if they described frameworks incorporating economic evaluation methods for DHTs. Data were extracted across key methodological dimensions: evaluation type, study design, comparator, time horizon, perspective, effectiveness measures, cost components, and uncertainty analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 26 frameworks, and the analysis revealed pronounced heterogeneity across methodological domains. While 50% (n=13) included both full and partial evaluations, core components were often missing: 81% (n=21) did not define a time horizon, and in 73% (n=19) the evaluation perspective was absent. Cost-utility analysis and budget impact analysis were the most frequently cited methods, yet few frameworks justified their choice or linked it to the maturity of the technology. Some addressed adaptive study designs or aligned evaluation strategies with DHTs lifecycle stages. Cost inclusions varied substantially, with limited attention to productivity losses costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current frameworks lack standardisation and are not fully adapted to the characteristics of DHTs. Future development should prioritise flexible, lifecycle-aligned evaluation models and standardised guidance to support evidence-based digital health decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping methodologies for economic evaluation of digital health technologies: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Rita Santos, Francisco von Hafe, Filipa Sampaio, Ana Rita Londral, Julian Perelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are reshaping healthcare delivery, yet their diverse functionalities, dynamic nature, and non-traditional impact pathways challenge conventional economic evaluation methods. This scoping review aimed to systematically map existing frameworks for the economic evaluation of DHTs, assess their methodological components, and identify gaps to inform more robust, standardised approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Business Source Complete) and grey literature. Records published since 2015 were included if they described frameworks incorporating economic evaluation methods for DHTs. Data were extracted across key methodological dimensions: evaluation type, study design, comparator, time horizon, perspective, effectiveness measures, cost components, and uncertainty analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 26 frameworks, and the analysis revealed pronounced heterogeneity across methodological domains. While 50% (n=13) included both full and partial evaluations, core components were often missing: 81% (n=21) did not define a time horizon, and in 73% (n=19) the evaluation perspective was absent. Cost-utility analysis and budget impact analysis were the most frequently cited methods, yet few frameworks justified their choice or linked it to the maturity of the technology. Some addressed adaptive study designs or aligned evaluation strategies with DHTs lifecycle stages. Cost inclusions varied substantially, with limited attention to productivity losses costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current frameworks lack standardisation and are not fully adapted to the characteristics of DHTs. Future development should prioritise flexible, lifecycle-aligned evaluation models and standardised guidance to support evidence-based digital health decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标:数字健康技术(dht)正在重塑医疗保健服务,但其多样化的功能、动态性和非传统的影响途径挑战了传统的经济评估方法。这一范围审查旨在系统地绘制dht经济评价的现有框架,评估其方法学组成部分,并确定差距,以便为更稳健、标准化的方法提供信息。方法:遵循PRISMA-ScR指南,我们在学术数据库(PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和Business Source Complete)和灰色文献中进行了全面的文献检索。自2015年以来发布的记录,如果它们描述了纳入dht经济评估方法的框架,则包括在内。从关键方法学维度提取数据:评估类型、研究设计、比较物、时间范围、视角、有效性测量、成本组成部分和不确定性分析。结果:我们确定了26个框架,分析显示了不同方法学领域的显著异质性。虽然50% (n=13)包括完整和部分评估,但核心成分经常缺失:81% (n=21)没有定义时间范围,73% (n=19)没有评估视角。成本效用分析和预算影响分析是最常被引用的方法,但很少有框架证明他们的选择是合理的,或者将其与技术的成熟度联系起来。一些研究解决了适应性研究设计或与dht生命周期阶段一致的评估策略。包括的成本差异很大,对生产力损失成本的关注有限。结论:目前的框架缺乏标准化,不能完全适应dht的特点。未来的发展应优先考虑灵活的、与生命周期一致的评估模型和标准化指导,以支持基于证据的数字卫生决策。
Mapping methodologies for economic evaluation of digital health technologies: a scoping review.
Objectives: Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are reshaping healthcare delivery, yet their diverse functionalities, dynamic nature, and non-traditional impact pathways challenge conventional economic evaluation methods. This scoping review aimed to systematically map existing frameworks for the economic evaluation of DHTs, assess their methodological components, and identify gaps to inform more robust, standardised approaches.
Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Business Source Complete) and grey literature. Records published since 2015 were included if they described frameworks incorporating economic evaluation methods for DHTs. Data were extracted across key methodological dimensions: evaluation type, study design, comparator, time horizon, perspective, effectiveness measures, cost components, and uncertainty analysis.
Results: We identified 26 frameworks, and the analysis revealed pronounced heterogeneity across methodological domains. While 50% (n=13) included both full and partial evaluations, core components were often missing: 81% (n=21) did not define a time horizon, and in 73% (n=19) the evaluation perspective was absent. Cost-utility analysis and budget impact analysis were the most frequently cited methods, yet few frameworks justified their choice or linked it to the maturity of the technology. Some addressed adaptive study designs or aligned evaluation strategies with DHTs lifecycle stages. Cost inclusions varied substantially, with limited attention to productivity losses costs.
Conclusions: Current frameworks lack standardisation and are not fully adapted to the characteristics of DHTs. Future development should prioritise flexible, lifecycle-aligned evaluation models and standardised guidance to support evidence-based digital health decision-making.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.