Skip to main content
×
Home

A MODEL FOR ASSESSMENT OF TELEMEDICINE APPLICATIONS: MAST

  • Kristian Kidholm (a1), Anne Granstrøm Ekeland (a2), Lise Kvistgaard Jensen (a3), Janne Rasmussen (a3), Claus Duedal Pedersen (a3), Alison Bowes (a4), Signe Agnes Flottorp (a5) and Mickael Bech (a6)...
Abstract

Objectives: Telemedicine applications could potentially solve many of the challenges faced by the healthcare sectors in Europe. However, a framework for assessment of these technologies is need by decision makers to assist them in choosing the most efficient and cost-effective technologies. Therefore in 2009 the European Commission initiated the development of a framework for assessing telemedicine applications, based on the users’ need for information for decision making. This article presents the Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine applications (MAST) developed in this study.

Methods: MAST was developed through workshops with users and stakeholders of telemedicine.

Results: Based on the workshops and using the EUnetHTA Core HTA Model as a starting point a three-element model was developed, including: (i) preceding considerations, (ii) multidisciplinary assessment, and (iii) transferability assessment. In the multidisciplinary assessment, the outcomes of telemedicine applications comprise seven domains, based on the domains in the EUnetHTA model.

Conclusions: MAST provides a structure for future assessment of telemedicine applications. MAST will be tested during 2010–13 in twenty studies of telemedicine applications in nine European countries in the EC project Renewing Health.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1.Arlbjørn JS. Process optimization with simple means: The power of visualization. Ind Commer Train. 2011;43:151159.
2.Barlow J. Building an evidence base for successful telecare implementation – updated report of the Evidence Working Group of the Telecare Policy Collaborative chaired by James Barlow—November 2006. http://www.ssiacymru.org.uk/media/pdf/f/4/APPENDIX_B_CSIP_Telecare.pdf. (accessed August 1, 2011)
3.Commission Communication: Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and societies. COM/2008/689 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0689:FIN:EN:PDF. (accessed August 1, 2011)
4.CONSORT statement for RCTs. http://www.consort-statement.org/.
5.Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Mitchie S, Nazareth I, Mark P. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;33:979983.
6.Currell R, Urquhart C, Wainwright P, et al. Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: Effects on professional practice and health outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD002098.
7.Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs – same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402404.
8.Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:165171.
9.Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D, eds. Systematic reviews in health care. Meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001.
10.Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2010;79:736771.
11.EUnetHTA. HTA Adaptation toolkit – work package 5. October 2008. http://www.eunethta.eu/upload/WP5/EUnetHTA_HTA_Adaptation_Toolkit_October08.pdf. (accessed August 1, 2011)
12.Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A. Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8 (Suppl 1):17.
13.Hersh WR, Helfand M, Wallace J, et al. Clinical outcomes resulting from telemedicine intervention: A systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:5.
14.Hersch WR, Hickam DH, Severance SM, Dana TL, Krages KP, Helfand M. Telemedicine for the Medicare population: Update. 2006 Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 131 (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0024.) AHRQ Publication No. 06-E007. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
15.Lampe K, Mäkelä M, Garrido MV, et al. The HTA Core Model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:920.
16.Lampe K, Anttila H, Pasternack I. HTA core model handbook. https://fio.stakes.fi/htacore/handbook.html (accessed February 18, 2009).
18.Ohinmaa A, Hailey D, Roine R. Elements for assessment of telemedicine applications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:190202.
19.Scott RE, McCarthy FG, Jennett PA, et al. Telehealth outcomes: A synthesis of the literature and recommendations for outcome indicators. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13 (Suppl 2):138.
20.Scriven M.Evaluation thesaurus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
21.Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, et al. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: Reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8:24.
22.Taylor P. Evaluating telemedicine systems and services. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11:167177.
23.The Lewin Group, Inc. Assessment of approaches to evaluating telemedicine. Prepared for: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services. Contract Number: HHS-10-97-0012, 2000.
24.Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. Br Med J. 2002;324:14341437.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Kidholm et al. supplementary material
Supplementary data 1

 Word (84 KB)
84 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Kidholm et al. supplementary material
Supplementary data 2

 Word (1.5 MB)
1.5 MB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 39
Total number of PDF views: 385 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 2218 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.