Environmental impact has been poorly addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) processes despite its potential role in promoting more sustainable health systems. Initiatives to incorporate this dimension into economic evaluations (EE) that support HTA are few and far between. We aim to identify the state of the art and challenges for incorporating environmental impact into the EE of HTA.

We conducted a scoping review to identify publications on the assessment of the environmental dimension of health technologies from different approaches: establishment of theoretical frameworks and methods; data search strategies; identification of parameters, designs, and indicators; as well as descriptions of practical applications in HTA (literature review, EE, or budget impact analysis). The literature search was conducted through PubMed. Selected studies should provide insights to incorporate environmental impact into the EE of HTA regardless of the technology or environmental aspect considered (carbon footprint, use of resources, waste generation, etc.).

From a total of 219 references initially identified, 22 publications meeting the selection criteria were found. The holistic approach is recognized as the most appropriate for incorporating the environmental dimension, through the evaluation of the entire life cycle of the technology, as well as the management of the disease and the use of resources throughout the care process. A large amount of information and accurate estimates about the impact of the technology are needed. Therefore, the first reported approaches have focused on particular aspects of the environmental impact of a health technology (mainly the carbon footprint).

The practical incorporation of the environmental dimension into the HTA is still very incipient. Foundations have begun to be established for its incorporation into economic evaluation. A consensus is required on the most appropriate methodologies and tools to collect the necessary data. It would also require a multidisciplinary approach and a framework for cooperation between all the stakeholders.

Suicide poses a severe public health challenge worldwide, impacting individuals, families, work, and society. The multifaceted nature of suicide demands a complex approach involving psychological, biological, social, cultural, and environmental factors. Recognizing suicide’s status as the leading external cause of death in Spain, prevention increasingly incorporates technology, specifically mobile and software applications.

A systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of mobile and software applications was conducted (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases). Outcome variables included: suicide; suicidal behavior; suicidal intent; suicidal ideation/thinking; self-perceived suicide risk; using/seeking mental health services; associated mental symptoms; mental health-related quality of life; satisfaction of the user and the health professional; adverse events related to the app, as defined in the included studies. Studies that do not include suicidal behavior, intention, or ideation were excluded. Where available data allowed, a meta-analysis was conducted for each outcome variable.

One systematic review and 13 randomized controlled trials (n=2,952) were analyzed. No significant differences were found in deaths by suicide or suicide attempts. At post-intervention, small but significant reductions were observed in suicidal ideation, hopelessness, depression, and worry, with anxiety reduction slightly above statistical significance. At follow-up (8 to 52 weeks), these variables also obtained significant results, except depression and suicidal ideation. Regarding safety, there was no significant difference in safety phone calls for participants with suicidal ideation.

The evidence on suicide prevention app effectiveness is of low quality, precluding conclusive findings. Attempt reduction is suggested at 21 percent, but the confidence interval includes a potential 60 percent increase. Evidence on suicide-related psychological variables (suicide ideation, depression, hopelessness, and anxiety) is of higher quality (low–moderate), but effects are small and clinically uncertain. Safety findings are uncertain, impacting risk/benefit balance.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) with physical exercise is crucial for the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction and heart failure. However, according to published studies there are differences in access to hospital-based CR depending on sex, age, ethnicity, and geographical region. An alternative is CR in non-hospital settings such as primary care, the patient’s home, or another place by means of telerehabilitation.

We conducted a systematic review of full economic evaluations where non-hospital CR was compared with hospital CR in patients with ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Other eligibility criteria were model-based or clinical trial-based evaluations; studies reporting quality-adjusted life-years, years gained, or other clinical outcomes relevant to CR; and studies published in English or Spanish. Searches were conducted in June 2023 in various literature databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, INAHTA, PEDro, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and others. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and evidence synthesis were conducted by one economist and checked by a second reviewer.

Nine studies were selected from the 673 references identified. Another study was identified through previous systematic reviews. Ten randomized clinical trials were included in the review. None of the studies found differences in effectiveness between hospital CR and non-hospital CR. Two studies found that non-hospital CR was less costly than hospital CR, whereas the remainder did not find any differences in costs between the two groups or were unable to demonstrate the statistical significance of any differences observed. The best conducted studies concluded that non-hospital CR was as effective as and less costly than hospital CR.

Non-hospital CR was as cost effective as hospital CR for low- to-moderate risk patients. Based on the evidence, CR can be recommended in non-hospital settings. However, any form of CR should be evaluated after implementation because its complexity limits the generalizability of results across regions.

Epilepsy affects approximately 10.5 million individuals under the age of 15 years worldwide. In Spain, 3.7 per 1,000 inhabitants aged 6 to 14 years have epilepsy, making it the third most common neurological emergency. Drug resistance is observed in eight to 33 percent of cases. Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) systems could improve seizure control in pediatric patients who are not eligible for brain surgery.

We systematically searched for articles published up to September 2022 in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We included primary experimental and observational studies as well as case series studies addressing the safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of RNS in the treatment of drug-resistant pediatric epilepsy.

Two systematic reviews of prospective and retrospective case series studies and four primary experimental studies were identified. The case series studies found that a large proportion of pediatric patients responded to RNS, with a reduction of between 50 and 75 percent in the frequency of seizures. The intensity and duration of seizures also decreased after using RNS. Adverse effects of the RNS implantation process were related to infections, erythema, and hematomas. Only one study (n=17) reported moderate adverse effects related to stimulation (dysesthetic pain in the upper and lower right limb), but there were no serious reactions leading to RNS discontinuation.

Randomized controlled trials in pediatric drug-resistant populations ineligible for brain surgery with adequate sample sizes are needed to determine the effectiveness of RNS in terms of seizure frequency, duration, and intensity. No cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted on RNS in this cohort.

Aromatherapy is the field of herbal medicine that uses essential oils distilled from flowers, roots, and herbs and other plant compounds to promote physical and psychological well-being. Essential oils are absorbed into the body in different ways, with the inhaled and topical routes being the most widely used. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate and synthesize the available scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy for the management of any therapeutic indication. This report was requested by the Spanish Ministries of Health and Science and Innovation.

An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) was performed. The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for literature published from January 2006 to August 2021. SRs reporting the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy were included. We applied no restrictions in terms of administration route or essential oil used. Two reviewers independently performed screening and selection, data extraction, and quality assessment.

We included 74 SRs covering a wide variety of populations and settings. The most reported outcome was anxiety, followed by pain, and the most commonly used essential oil was lavender. Fifteen SRs reported mild adverse events with aromatherapy. Only 11 SRs assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Aromatherapy reduced heart rate and likely reduces anxiety and breathing rate in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Aromatherapy probably also reduces pain in women with primary dysmenorrhea. Additionally, it may reduce blood pressure, acute pain, subjective stress, and the need for antiemetic drugs after surgical procedures. However, the evidence was very uncertain regarding the effect of essential oils on anxiety, pain, and quality of life in patients with cancer, anxiety and pain after a caesarean section, and dental anxiety.

Aromatherapy may be useful for managing psychological and physical symptoms in different settings. However, the conclusions of this review are not definitive because of the moderate to high risk of bias in many of the primary studies included in the SRs.

GesPeDia is a web-based application that provides aggregate clinical information, using outcome and process indicators, and disaggregated patient information. Information is obtained from the electronic medical records. GesPeDia aims to promote people-centered care, improve monitoring of patients’ health outcomes and quality of professional performance. This study aims to evaluate usability, acceptability and satisfaction of GesPeDia.

Nineteen evaluators were included (2 management technicians, 9 health center directors and 8 endocrine consultants). They had access to GesPeDia for two months. Perception of their usefulness for decision-making, acceptability and design satisfaction were measured with an online questionnaire. In addition, suggestions for improvements in the app’s functionalities were collected. Finally, a sample of the evaluators were included in a semi-structured interview to deepen the analysis of dimensions. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed.

The questionnaire was completed by 10 professionals, with mean age of 51.1 years and professional experience 16.5 years. Among the evaluators, 60 percent considered the app quite useful and only 10 percent found it inappropriate for their daily activities. Each of the indicator blocks was rated quite useful. Eight percent considered GesPeDia moderately fast, although for 20 percent navigation within the app was not very intuitive. Appearance was positively valued by 80 percent, despite the fact that 30 percent considered that design does not favor the understanding of contents. Seventy percent considered degree of reliability, relevance and clarity of the contents to be high. Most indicated that information provided by GesPedia is complete for decision-making.

GesPeDia is valued positively by evaluators as a decision-making tool.

Telemedicine strategies have been broadly introducing in health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, including in care of neurological diseases.

A rapid realist review was conducted using EUnetHTAs Core Model 3.0 and GRADE evidence to decision frameworks were used as frameworks to describe the ethical, legal, organizational, social and patient aspects (ELSI+) related to the use of teleneurology (TN) A scoping multistakeholder meeting helped defined the scope and research questions of the assessment. Patient representatives, clinicians, scientific society representatives with relevant experience in TN were invited and participated. Industry representatives were also present. Systematic searches for ethical, legal, organizational, social and patients related aspects were conducted. Additional manual searches contributed to contextualize these dimensions in the Spanish context. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Main results of the assessment of the ELSI+ aspects of TN were described. TN applications are diverse depending on the condition, objective of care and technology used. The implementation of TN lacks specific legal frameworks which implies legal uncertainty. TN may increase geographical accessibility to neurological care in remote areas and by reducing difficult commuting to specialized care centers. Nevertheless, accessibility is challenged by reduced access to technology, the digital divide, lack of health literacy or technologies not adapted to functional diversity. Therefore, equity is not guaranteed if it is offered as a non-voluntary basis or with no support. TN tends to be accepted by patients and carers if it has enough quality, saves travelling time and costs and does not dehumanize care as it is perceived as more flexible and convenient. Quality of TN needs an interdisciplinary team with skills to coordinate organizational aspects of the implementation which include among others, the planification of the support to patients and carers before, during and after the consultation. Health professionals may also need to learn adapted communicational and technological skills.

The implementation of TN poses many ethical, legal, organizational, social or patient-centered challenges.