Attitudes Toward the Adoption of Remote Patient Monitoring and Artificial Intelligence in Parkinson's Disease Management: Perspectives of Patients and Neurologists.

OBJECTIVE: Early detection of Parkinson's Disease (PD) progression remains a challenge. As remote patient monitoring solutions (RMS) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies emerge as potential aids for PD management, there's a gap in understanding how end users view these technologies. This research explores patient and neurologist perspectives on AI-assisted RMS. METHODS: Qualitative interviews and focus-groups were conducted with 27 persons with PD (PwPD) and six neurologists from Finland and Italy. The discussions covered traditional disease progression detection and the prospects of integrating AI and RMS. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: The study involved five individual interviews (four Italian participants and one Finnish) and six focus-groups (four Finnish and two Italian) with PwPD. Additionally, six neurologists (three from each country) were interviewed. Both cohorts voiced frustration with current monitoring methods due to their limited real-time detection capabilities. However, there was enthusiasm for AI-assisted RMS, contingent upon its value addition, user-friendliness, and preservation of the doctor-patient bond. While some PwPD had privacy and trust concerns, the anticipated advantages in symptom regulation seemed to outweigh these apprehensions. DISCUSSION: The study reveals a willingness among PwPD and neurologists to integrate RMS and AI into PD management. Widespread adoption requires these technologies to provide tangible clinical benefits, remain user-friendly, and uphold trust within the physician-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: This study offers insights into the potential drivers and barriers for adopting AI-assisted RMS in PD care. Recognizing these factors is pivotal for the successful integration of these digital health tools in PD management.

An artificial intelligence based app for skin cancer detection evaluated in a population based setting.

Artificial intelligence (AI) based algorithms for classification of suspicious skin lesions have been implemented in mobile phone apps (mHealth), but their effect on healthcare systems is undocumented. In 2019, a large Dutch health insurance company offered 2.2 million adults free access to an mHealth app for skin cancer detection. To study the impact on dermatological healthcare consumption, we conducted a retrospective population-based pragmatic study. We matched 18,960 mHealth-users who completed at least one successful assessment with the app to 56,880 controls who did not use the app and calculated odds ratios (OR) to compare dermatological claims between both groups in the first year after granting free access. A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the cost per additional detected (pre)malignancy. Here we report that mHealth-users had more claims for (pre)malignant skin lesions than controls (6.0% vs 4.6%, OR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.4)) and also a more than threefold higher risk of claims for benign skin tumors and nevi (5.9% vs 1.7%, OR 3.7 (95% CI 3.4-4.1)). The costs of detecting one additional (pre)malignant skin lesion with the app compared to the current standard of care were €2567. Based on these results, AI in mHealth appears to have a positive impact on detecting more cutaneous (pre)malignancies, but this should be balanced against the for now stronger increase in care consumption for benign skin tumors and nevi.

How can we discover the most valuable types of big data and artificial intelligence-based solutions? A methodology for the efficient development of the underlying analytics that improve care.

BACKGROUND: Much has been invested in big data and artificial intelligence-based solutions for healthcare. However, few applications have been implemented in clinical practice. Early economic evaluations can help to improve decision-making by developers of analytics underlying these solutions aiming to increase the likelihood of successful implementation, but recommendations about their use are lacking. The aim of this study was to develop and apply a framework that positions best practice methods for economic evaluations alongside development of analytics, thereby enabling developers to identify barriers to success and to select analytics worth further investments. METHODS: The framework was developed using literature, recommendations for economic evaluations and by applying the framework to use cases (chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), intensive care, diabetes). First, the feasibility of developing clinically relevant analytics was assessed and critical barriers to successful development and implementation identified. Economic evaluations were then used to determine critical thresholds and guide investment decisions. RESULTS: When using the framework to assist decision-making of developers of analytics, continuing development was not always feasible or worthwhile. Developing analytics for progressive CLL and diabetes was clinically relevant but not feasible with the data available. Alternatively, developing analytics for newly diagnosed CLL patients was feasible but continuing development was not considered worthwhile because the high drug costs made it economically unattractive for potential users. Alternatively, in the intensive care unit, analytics reduced mortality and per-patient costs when used to identify infections (- 0.5%, - €886) and to improve patient-ventilator interaction (- 3%, - €264). Both analytics have the potential to save money but the potential benefits of analytics that identify infections strongly depend on infection rate; a higher rate implies greater cost-savings. CONCLUSIONS: We present a framework that stimulates efficiency of development of analytics for big data and artificial intelligence-based solutions by selecting those applications of analytics for which development is feasible and worthwhile. For these applications, results from early economic evaluations can be used to guide investment decisions and identify critical requirements.

The potential of real-time analytics to improve care for mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: an early economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation services are an important driver of the high costs of intensive care. An optimal interaction between a patient and a ventilator is therefore paramount. Suboptimal interaction is present when patients repeatedly demand, but do not receive, breathing support from a mechanical ventilator (> 30 times in 3 min), also known as an ineffective effort event (IEEV). IEEVs are associated with increased hospital mortality prolonged intensive care stay, and prolonged time on ventilation and thus development of real-time analytics that identify IEEVs is essential. To assist decision-making about further development we estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of real-time analytics that identify ineffective effort events. METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness model combining a decision tree and Markov model for long-term outcomes with data on current care from a Greek hospital and literature. A lifetime horizon and a healthcare payer perspective were used. Uncertainty about the results was assessed using sensitivity and scenario analyses to examine the impact of varying parameters like the intensive care costs per day and the effectiveness of treatment of IEEVs. RESULTS: Use of the analytics could lead to reduced mortality (3% absolute reduction), increased quality adjusted life years (0.21 per patient) and cost-savings (€264 per patient) compared to current care. Moreover, cost-savings for hospitals and health improvements can be incurred even if the treatment's effectiveness is reduced from 30 to 10%. The estimated savings increase to €1,155 per patient in countries where costs of an intensive care day are high (e.g. the Netherlands). There is considerable headroom for development and the analytics generate savings when the price of the analytics per bed per year is below €7,307. Furthermore, even when the treatment's effectiveness is 10%, the probability that the analytics are cost-effective exceeds 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing real-time analytics to identify ineffective effort events can lead to health and financial benefits. Therefore, it will be worthwhile to continue assessment of the effectiveness of the analytics in clinical practice and validate our findings. Eventually, their adoption in settings where costs of an intensive care day are high and ineffective efforts are frequent could yield a high return on investment.

Economic evaluations of big data analytics for clinical decision-making: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Much has been invested in big data analytics to improve health and reduce costs. However, it is unknown whether these investments have achieved the desired goals. We performed a scoping review to determine the health and economic impact of big data analytics for clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the National Health Services Economic Evaluations Database for relevant articles. We included peer-reviewed papers that report the health economic impact of analytics that assist clinical decision-making. We extracted the economic methods and estimated impact and also assessed the quality of the methods used. In addition, we estimated how many studies assessed "big data analytics" based on a broad definition of this term. RESULTS: The search yielded 12 133 papers but only 71 studies fulfilled all eligibility criteria. Only a few papers were full economic evaluations; many were performed during development. Papers frequently reported savings for healthcare payers but only 20% also included costs of analytics. Twenty studies examined "big data analytics" and only 7 reported both cost-savings and better outcomes. DISCUSSION: The promised potential of big data is not yet reflected in the literature, partly since only a few full and properly performed economic evaluations have been published. This and the lack of a clear definition of "big data" limit policy makers and healthcare professionals from determining which big data initiatives are worth implementing.