Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Literature review and novel conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination provides significant health gains to individuals and society and can potentially improve health equity, healthcare systems and national economies. Policy decisions, however, are rarely informed by comprehensive economic evaluations (EE) including vaccination's wide-ranging value. The objective of this analysis was to focus on health technology assessment systems to identify relevant value concepts in order to improve current EE of non-pandemic vaccines. METHODS: Following a literature review, a novel Value of Vaccination (VoV) framework was developed with experts in vaccine EE from developed countries with established health technology assessment systems. RESULTS: Forty-four studies presenting value frameworks or concepts applicable to vaccination were included. Eighteen unique value concepts relevant to EE were identified and defined. These were categorised within the VoV framework using three dimensions, moving from a narrow payer perspective to a more expansive and societal perspective. The dimensions were: (I) conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., health gains in vaccinees, direct medical costs); (II) conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., indirect health/economic gains to caregivers/households, productivity in vaccinees); and (III) novel societal concepts (e.g., financial risk protection, peace of mind, societal health gains, healthcare systems security, political stability, social equity and macroeconomic gains). While good quality evidence and methods are available to support concepts in Dimensions I and II, further work is needed to generate the required evidence for vaccination impact on Dimension III concepts. CONCLUSIONS: The devastating effect on nations of the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the potential far-reaching benefits that many vaccination programmes can offer. This VoV framework is particularly relevant to policy decisions considering EE, and the potential future expansion of non-pandemic vaccination value considerations. The framework helps to understand and compare current value considerations across countries and payer versus societal perspectives. It provides decision-makers with a transparent and logical path to broaden consideration of VoV in EE.

Quality Assessment of Digital Health Applications: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: All over the world, development and usage of mobile health (mHealth) apps is increasing. While apps offer numerous opportunities to improve health care, there are associated problems that differ significantly from those of traditional health care services. Further investigations on the quality of mHealth apps are needed to address these problems. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and map research on quality assessment and quality assurance of mHealth apps and their transferability to continuous quality assurance of mHealth apps. METHODS: The scoping review will follow published methodological frameworks for scoping studies as well as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews criteria. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO), reference lists of relevant articles, and websites of relevant institutions will be searched. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of articles. Therefore, a 2-stage (title and abstract, followed by full text) screening process was conducted. Quality management systems and quality assessment tools will be analyzed and included in our review. Particular focus is placed on quality dimensions. RESULTS: This scoping review provides an overview of the available evidence and identifies research gaps regarding continuous quality assessment of mHealth apps. Thereby, relevant quality dimensions and criteria can be identified and their eligibility and relevance for the development of a continuous quality assurance system of mHealth apps can be determined. Our results are planned to be submitted to an indexed, peer-reviewed journal in the second half of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review in the context of continuous quality assurance of mHealth apps. Our results will be used within the research "Continuous quality assurance of Digital Health Applications" ("QuaSiApps") project funded by the German Federal Joint Committee. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36974.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Country analysis and priority value concepts.

BACKGROUND: A value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE. METHODS: The previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE. RESULTS: The EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity). CONCLUSIONS: Gaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society's point of view.