Identifying the Value of an eHealth Intervention Aimed at Cognitive Impairments: Observational Study in Different Contexts and Service Models.

BACKGROUND: Value is one of the central concepts in health care, but it is vague within the field of summative eHealth evaluations. Moreover, the role of context in explaining the value is underexplored, and there is no explicit framework guiding the evaluation of the value of eHealth interventions. Hence, different studies conceptualize and operationalize value in different ways, ranging from measuring outcomes such as clinical efficacy or behavior change of patients or professionals to measuring the perceptions of various stakeholders or in economic terms. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study is to identify contextual factors that determine similarities and differences in the value of an eHealth intervention between two contexts. We also aim to reflect on and contribute to the discussion about the specification, assessment, and relativity of the "value" concept in the evaluation of eHealth interventions. METHODS: The study concerned a 6-month eHealth intervention targeted at elderly patients (n=107) diagnosed with cognitive impairment in Italy and Sweden. The intervention introduced a case manager role and an eHealth platform to provide remote monitoring and coaching services to the patients. A model for evaluating the value of eHealth interventions was designed as monetary and nonmonetary benefits and sacrifices, based on the value conceptualizations in eHealth and marketing literature. The data was collected using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the clock drawing test, and the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and health care professionals. Monetary data was collected from the health care and technology providers. RESULTS: The value of an eHealth intervention applied to similar types of populations but differed in different contexts. In Sweden, patients improved cognitive performance (MMSE mean 0.85, SD 1.62, P<.001), reduced anxiety (EQ-5D-5L mean 0.16, SD 0.54, P=.046), perceived their health better (EQ-5D-5L VAS scale mean 2.6, SD 9.7, P=.035), and both patients and health care professionals were satisfied with the care. However, the Swedish service model demonstrated an increased cost, higher workload for health care professionals, and the intervention was not cost-efficient. In Italy, the patients were satisfied with the care received, and the health care professionals felt empowered and had an acceptable workload. Moreover, the intervention was cost-effective. However, clinical efficacy and quality of life improvements have not been observed. We identified 6 factors that influence the value of eHealth intervention in a particular context: (1) service delivery design of the intervention (process of delivery), (2) organizational setup of the intervention (ie, organizational structure and professionals involved), (3) cost of different treatments, (4) hourly rates of staff for delivering the intervention, (5) lifestyle habits of the population (eg, how physically active they were in their daily life and if they were living alone or with family), and (6) local preferences on the quality of patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Value in the assessments of eHealth interventions need to be considered beyond economic terms, perceptions, or behavior changes. To obtain a holistic view of the value created, it needs to be operationalized into monetary and nonmonetary outcomes, categorizing these into benefits and sacrifices.

Whole System in the Room: Toward Systems Integration in Healthcare.

How might systems integration be furthered in healthcare? The paper addresses this by exploring critically the potentials of appreciative inquiry for accelerating systems integration through a large group intervention. We analyze a one-day dialog workshop to get "the whole system in the room" to improve cancer care in a regional health authority in south west Sweden. Seeing systems integration as socialization and enhanced common understandings, we suggest that discourse may play a crucial role in bringing together the various stakeholders in the system. Our analysis of the group discussions of the event demonstrates however that the degree of shared understanding can vary considerably across the discussion themes of appreciative inquiry. We argue that the "patient," as a linguistic artifact, can act as a boundary signifier that enables those present to interact in a meaningful and coherent way but that this stops short of systems integration.

Action research healthcare: Focus on patients, improve quality, drive down costs.

We discuss action research healthcare as a transformative approach that continuously innovates in healthcare, attending to the "quadruple" aim. This article is shaped around a decade of evidence in Sweden. At the heart of healthcare action research is the endeavour to "learn by doing" with the participation of key stakeholders, including the patient. Experience suggests that an action research approach is particularly relevant when treating patients with chronic diseases and complex care needs. This inclusion is itself a social learning process and is key to realizing the improved outcomes. Insights from objective quantitative studies are balanced with personal and inter-subjective dialogue that aligns different parts of a system in a movement towards improvement. Close-up non-defensive self-inquiry in the company of colleagues, with trust dynamics building over time, may be a key point of leverage for such systemic improvement activities.

Community collaboration to increase foreign-born women's participation in a cervical cancer screening program in Sweden: a quality improvement project.

INTRODUCTION: The prevailing inequities in healthcare have been well addressed in previous research, especially screening program participation, but less attention has been paid to how to overcome these inequities. This paper explores a key factor of a successful improvement project: collaboration with local doulas to raise cervical cancer screening participation by more than 40 percent in an area with a large number of foreign-born residents. METHODS: Data was collected through two focus group discussions with the doulas in order to design interventions and debrief after interventions had been carried out in the community. Various tools were used to analyze the verbal data and monitor the progress of the project. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged from the focus group discussions: barriers that prevent women from participating in the cervical cancer screening program, interventions to increase participation, and the role of the doulas in the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This paper suggests that several barriers make participation in cervical cancer screening program more difficult for foreign-born women in Sweden. Specifically, these barriers include lack of knowledge concerning cancer and the importance of preventive healthcare services and practical obstacles such as unavailable child care and language skills. The overarching approach to surmount these barriers was to engage persons with a shared cultural background and mother tongue as the target audience to verbally communicate information. The doulas who helped to identify barriers and plan and execute interventions gained increased confidence and a sense of pride in assisting to bridge the gap between healthcare providers and users.