Advertisement

Scrutinized Proof of Effectiveness or Cost Effectiveness Regarding Patient Reported Outcomes

  • Thomas Wetter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

To conquer an equal place next to classical treatments Consumer Health Informatics services have to master the equal challenge: an RCT. Statistically Consumer Health Informatics RCTs do not differ fundamentally from trials for new pharmaceuticals, including that non-inferiority or cost effectiveness may inform the study design. To be realistic and externally valid, however, trials must appreciate that (i) Consumer Health Informatics services must exist and develop in an environment that the experimenter cannot control and must still deploy a definite unmistakable intervention (ii) subjects are human beings whose cooperation we need but whose learning and reflections co-determine behavior and outcome and confound outcome measurement

Keywords

Trial Randomized controlled trial Managing change Subject reflections Patient reported outcomes External validity Internal validity Cost-effectiveness Noninferiority Cochrane Active agent 

References

  1. 1.
    Andersson G, Paxling B, Wiwe M, Vernmark K, Felix CB, Lundborg L, Furmark T, Cuijpers P, Carlbring P. Therapeutic alliance in guided internet-delivered cognitive behavioural treatment of depression, generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2012;50:544–50. doi:  10.1016/j.brat.2012.05.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergström J, Andersson G, Ljótsson B, Rück C, Andréewitch S, Karlsson A, Carlbring P, Andersson E, Lindefors N. Internet-versus group-administered cognitive behaviour therapy for panic disorder in a psychiatric setting: a randomised trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10(54):1471–244X. doi:  10.1186/1471-244X-10-54.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(2):143–64. doi:  10.1177/1090198104263660.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buccoliero L, Calciolari S, Marsilio M. A methodological and operative framework for the evaluation of an e-health project. Int J Health Plann Manag. 2008;23:3–20. doi:  10.1002/hpm.881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blankers M, Koeter MWJ, Schippers GM. Internet therapy versus internet self-help versus no treatment for problematic alcohol use: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011;79(3):330–41. doi:  10.1037/a0023498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(4):295–309. doi:  10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ball DE, Tisocki K, Herxheimer A. Advertising and disclosure of funding on patient organisation websites: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2006;201(6). doi:  10.1186/1471-2458-6-201.
  8. 8.
    Crowne DP, Marlowe D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley; 1964.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coggon D. Statistics in clinical practice. 2nd ed. London: BMJ; 2003. E-Book.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox NS, Brennan JS, Chasen ST. Clinical estimation of fetal weight and the Hawthorne effect. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;141:111–4. doi:  10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.07.023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glasgow RE. eHealth evaluation and dissemination research. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(5S):S119–26. doi:  10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. II: “Significant” relations and their pitfalls. BMJ. 1997;315:422–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine. 4th ed. Chichester: BMJ Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. E-Book.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibbons MC, Wilson RF, Samal L, Lehmann CU, Dickersin K, Lehmann HP, Aboumatar H, Finkelstein J, Shelton E, Sharma R, Bass EB. Impact of consumer health informatics applications. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-E019. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 188, 10 2009. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/chiapp-evidence-report.pdf.
  15. 15.
    Jacobs N, Evers S, Ament A, Claes N. Cost-utility of a cardiovascular prevention program in highly educated adults: intermediate results of a randomized controlled trial. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):11–9. doi:  10.1017/S0266462309990845.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones JB, Snyder CF, Wu AW. Issues in the design of internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1407–17. doi:  10.1007/s11136-007-9235-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan B, Litewka S. Ethical challenges of telemedicine and telehealth. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17:401–16. doi:  10.1017/S0963180108080535.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lana RE. Pretest sensitization, chapter 5. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, editors. Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic; 1969. pp. 119–41.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. Am Psychol. 2002;57(2):705–17. doi:  10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLean S, Chandler D, Nurmatov U, Liu J, Pagliari C, Car J, Sheikh A. Telehealthcare for asthma: a Cochrane review. CMAJ. 2011;183(11):E733–42. doi:  10.1503/cmaj.101146.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McMahon GT, Fonda SJ, Gomes HE, Alexis G, Conlin PR. A randomized comparison of online- and telephone- based care management with internet training alone in adult patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(11):1060–7. doi:  10.1089/dia.2012.0137.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orne MT. Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls, chapter 5. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, editors. Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic; 1969. pp. 143–79.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW, for the CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. An extension of the CONSORT Statement. http://www.consort-statement.org/extensions/designs/non-inferiority-and-equivalence-trials/, 2012. Last visited 23 Mar 2014.
  24. 24.
    Raatikainen MJP, Uusimaa P, van Ginneken MME, Janssen JPG, Linnaluoto M. Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients: a safe, time-saving, and cost-effective means for follow-up. Europace. 2008;10:1145–51. doi:  10.1093/europace/eun203.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Risko EF, Quilty LC, Oakman JM. Socially desirable responding on the web: investigating the candor hypothesis. J Pers Assess. 2006;87(3):269–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roethlisberger FJ, Dickinson WJ. Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1939. Citation from [18].Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rothmann MD, Wiens BL, Chan ISF. Design and analysis of non-inferiority trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenberg MJ. The conditions and consequences of evaluation apprehension, chapter 7. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, editors. Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic; 1969. pp. 279–349.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosenthal R. Interpersonal expectations: effects of the experimenter’s hypothesis, chapter 6. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, editors. Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic; 1969. pp. 181–277.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenthal R. Interpersonal expectancy effects: a 30-year perspective. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1994;3(6):176–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. The volunteer subject, chapter 3. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, editors. Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic; 1969. pp. 59–118.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, editors. Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic; 1969. Newly published in 2009.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. Artifacts in behavioral resarch – Robert Rosenthal’s and Ralph L Rosnow’s classical books, volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rubovits PC, Maehr ML. Pygmalion analyzed: toward an explanation of the Rosenthal-Jacobson findings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1971;19(2):197–203. doi:  10.1037/h0031526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shah NB, Der E, Ruggerio C, Heidenreich PA, Massie BM. Prevention of hospitalizations for heart failure with an interactive home monitoring program. Am Heart J. 1998;135:373–8. doi:  10.1016/S0002-8703(98)70310-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schueller SM, Leykin Y, Pérez-Stable ES, Muñoz RF. Selection of intervention components in an internet stop smoking participant preference trial: beyond randomized controlled trials. Psychiatry Res. 2013;1–2(205):159–65. doi:  10.1016/j.psychres.2012.08.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Simon P. Keep the customer satisfied. New York: Columbia Records 45079; 1970Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smit F, Lokkerbol J, Riper H, Majo MC, Boon B, Blankers M. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of health care systems for alcohol use disorders: how implementation of eHealth interventions improves cost-effectiveness. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3):e56. doi:  10.2196/jmir.1694.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stuhlmiller C, Tolchard B. Computer-assisted CBT for depression & anxiety. Increasing accessibility to evidence-based mental health treatment. J Psychol Nurs. 2009;47(7):32–9.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tate DF, Finkelstein EA, Khavjou O, Gustafson A. Cost effectiveness of internet interventions: review and recommendations. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38:40–5. doi:  10.1007/s12160-009-9131-6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Bastelaar K, Cuijpers P, Pouwer F, Riper H, Snoek FJ. Development and reach of a web-based cognitive behavioural therapy programme to reduce symptoms of depression and diabetes-specific distress. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:49–55. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    van den Berg MH, Ronday HK, Peeters AJ, le Cessie S, van der Giesen FJ, Breedveld FC, Vliet Vlieland TPM. Using internet technology to deliver a home-based physical activity intervention for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(5):935–45. doi:  10.1002/art.22339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Webb TL, Joseph J, Yardley L, Michie S. Using the internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4. doi:  10.2196/jmir.1376.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Wetter
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Biometry and InformaticsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical EducationUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations