ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We examined the relative efficacy of an online versus face-to-face (FTF) parenting intervention for reducing the severity of child conduct problems and related parent and child outcomes in 2 randomized controlled trials. METHOD: In Study 1, rural families (n = 133) with a child 3-9 years of age with a full or subclinical primary diagnosis of oppositional defiant or conduct disorder traveled to Sydney, Australia for a comprehensive assessment and randomization to receive either AccessEI, a 6-10 week online therapist-assisted parenting program, or FTF treatment, whereby they received the same program presented FTF during a 1-week treatment. To control for unavoidable treatment dosage differences in the first study, Study 2 was conducted in which urban families (n = 73) with a child aged 3 to 14 years meeting similar criteria as Study 1 were randomized to receive AccessEI versus FTF treatment. RESULTS: In both studies, improvements in severity of child diagnoses and maternal measures of child behavior showed very large effect sizes for both treatments at posttreatment and 3-month follow-up and did not differ across treatment conditions. There were moderate effect sizes for improvements in parent mental health and no differences across treatment conditions. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the effects of the therapist-assisted online parenting interventions for the treatment of child conduct problems were similar to a FTF intervention, providing evidence for the effectiveness of an accessible treatment for rural and remote families. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).