A Systematic Review of Value Criteria for Next-Generation Sequencing/Comprehensive Genomic Profiling to Inform Value Framework Development.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively identify and map an exhaustive list of value criteria for the assessment of next-generation sequencing/comprehensive genomic profiling (NGS/CGP), to be used as an aid in decision making. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify existing value frameworks (VFs) applicable to any type of healthcare technology. VFs and criteria were mapped to a previously published Latin American (LA) VF to harmonize definitions and identify additional criteria and or subcriteria. Based on this analysis, we extracted a comprehensive, evidence-based list of criteria and subcriteria to be considered in the design of a NGS/CGP VF. RESULTS: A total of 42 additional VFs were compared with the LA VF, 88% were developed in high-income countries, 30% targeted genomic testing, and 16% specifically targeted oncology. A total of 242 criteria and subcriteria were extracted; 227 (94%) were fully/partially included in the LA VF; and 15 (6%) were new. Clinical benefit and economic aspects were the most common criteria. VFs oriented to genomic testing showed significant overlap with other VFs. Considering all criteria and subcriteria, a total of 18 criteria and 36 individual subcriteria were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an evidence-based set of criteria and subcriteria for healthcare decision making useful for NGS/CGP as well as other health technologies. The resulting list can be beneficial to inform decision making and will serve as a foundation to co-create a multistakeholder NGS/CGP VF that is aligned with the needs and values of health systems and could help to improve patient access to high-value technologies.

Assessing the Value of Provider-Facing Digital Health Technologies Used in Chronic Disease Management: Toward a Value Framework Based on Multistakeholder Perceptions.

OBJECTIVES: Hardly any value frameworks exist that are focused on provider-facing digital health technologies (DHTs) for managing chronic disease with diverse stakeholder participation in their creation. Our study aimed to 1) understanding different stakeholder opinions on where value lies in provider-facing technologies and 2) create a comprehensive value assessment framework for DHT assessment. METHODS: Mixed-methods comprising both primary and secondary evidence were used. A scoping review enabled a greater understanding of the evidence base and generated the initial indicators. Thirty-four indicators were proposed within 6 value domains: health inequalities (3), data rights and governance (6), technical and security characteristics (6), clinical characteristics (7), economic characteristics (9), and user preferences (3). Subsequently, a 3-round Web-Delphi was conducted to rate the indicators' importance in the context of technology assessment and determine whether there was consensus. RESULTS: The framework was adapted to 45 indicators based on participant contributions in round 1 and delivered 16 stable indicators with consensus after rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-nine indicators showed instability and/or dissensus, particularly the data rights domain, in which all 5 indicators were unstable, showcasing the novelty of the concept of data rights. Significant instability between important and very important ratings was present within stakeholder groups, particularly clinicians and policy experts, indicating they were unsure how different aspects should be valued. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a comprehensive value assessment framework for assessing provider-facing DHTs incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives. Instability for specific indicators was expected due to the novelty of data and analytics integration in health technologies and their assessment. Further work is needed to ensure that, across all types of stakeholders, there is a clear understanding of the potential impacts of provider-facing DHTs. HIGHLIGHTS: Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods may not be well suited for evaluating digital health technologies (DHTs) because of their complexity and wide-ranging impact on the health system.This article adds to the literature by exploring a wide range of stakeholder opinions on the value of provider-facing DHTs, creating a holistic value framework for these technologies, and highlighting areas in which further discussions are needed to align stakeholders on DHTs' value attributes.A Web-based Delphi co-creation approach was used involving key stakeholders from throughout the digital health space to generate a widely applicable value framework for assessing provider-facing DHTs. The stakeholders include patients, health care professionals, supply-side actors, decision makers, and academia from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany.High levels of instability among stakeholders and value domains are demonstrated, indicating the novelty of assessing provider-facing DHTs and their impact on the health system.

A Value Framework to Assess Patient-Facing Digital Health Technologies That Aim to Improve Chronic Disease Management: A Delphi Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Digital health technologies (DHTs) can optimise healthcare costs and improve quality and efficiency of care. However, the fast-paced rate of innovation and varying evidence standards can make it difficult for decision-makers to assess these technologies in an efficient and evidence-based manner. We sought to develop a comprehensive framework to assess the value of novel patient-facing DHTs used to manage chronic diseases by eliciting stakeholder value preferences. METHODS: Literature review and primary data collection from a three-round web-Delphi exercise was utilized. 79 participants from 5 stakeholder groups (patients, physicians, industry, decision makers, and influencers) and 3 countries (United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany) took part. Likert scale data were statistically analyzed to determine intergroup differences in both country and stakeholder groups, stability of results, and overall consensus. RESULTS: The resulting co-created framework comprised 33 stable indicators with consensus from quantitative value judgments across domains: health inequalities, data rights and governance, technical and security, economic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and user preferences. Lack of stakeholder consensus was observed on the importance of value-based care models, optimizing resources for sustainable systems, and stakeholder involvement in DHT design, development, and implementation; however, this was because of high rates of neutrality and not negative judgments. Supply-side actors and academic experts were the most unstable stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder value judgments revealed a need for a coordinated regulatory and health technology assessment policy response that updates laws to meet technological innovations, offers a pragmatic approach to evidence standards to assess DHTs, and involves stakeholders to understand and meet their needs.