Elsevier

Healthcare

Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2021, 100533
Healthcare

Digital health & low-value care

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100533Get rights and content

Abstract

Digital health advances offer a multitude of possibilities to improve public health and individual wellbeing. Little attention has been paid, however, to digital health's potential to create low-value care - the reduction of which is increasingly appreciated as a policy priority. This commentary provides a framework to illustrate the potential for consumer-facing digital health to generate three distinct categories of low-value care; 1) ineffective care because it is underdeveloped, 2) inefficient care because it supplements rather than substitutes, or 3) unwanted care because it is not aligned with clinician and patient preferences. We offer specific policy recommendations to reduce each type of low-value care.

Introduction

Digital health is growing at a fast pace, rapidly transforming the way health care is delivered and how patients and clinicians interact. The recent steady growth of telehealth visits,1 was markedly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic leading to multifold increases in video visits in the span of just a few weeks.2 The rapid development of digital health products offers timely opportunities to improve health and health care, but also may create low-value care. This commentary, developed by members of an AcademyHealth thematic working group, offers a conceptual framework to consider the potential for digital health to generate low-value care and to offer policy solutions. We assert that digital health may potentiate three types of low-value care; 1) ineffective care because it is underdeveloped, 2) inefficient care because it adds unnecessary care rather than replaces it, or 3) unwanted care because it does not align with patient and clinician preferences. With all the excitement around digital health advances and the hope it garners in reducing the spread of COVID-19,3, 4, 5 thoughtful consideration about the potential for harms to exceed benefits – the traditional definition of a low value service - has never been more urgently needed.6

Section snippets

The promise of digital health: substituting, augmenting, and creating new health care

The term “digital health” covers a wide array of hardware and software technologies including, but not limited to, mobile health (mHealth), wearable biosensors and garments, telemedicine, artificial intelligence, web-based analysis, virtual reality, robots, and emerging technologies intended to improve health care services, public health and patient well being, reduce inefficiencies, and personalize health care.

Our conceptual framework is presented in Table 1. The first three rows categorize

Illustration of digital Health's potential to exacerbate low value care

The columns of the framework use Verkerk's typology16 to organize digital health by the potential to generate low-value care because it is either ineffective, inefficient, or unwanted.

Digital health risks produce ineffective low-value care when the technology is undertested and potentiates harm. The vast majority of mHealth applications do not meet the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) definition of a medical device and are available to consumers without validation.17 However, only 1% of

Policy solutions to mitigate low-value care generated by digital health

While the elimination of low-value care has become a recent policy priority,33 little attention has been paid to the prevention and reduction of low-value care generated by digital health. Verkerk's framework16 offers guidance about which strategies may be most effective for managing low-value care potentiated by digital health. The bottom row of our framework illustrates Verkerk's three policy mechanisms adapted specifically for digital health with the goals to limit ineffective care, lean out

Disclosures

The views presented in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or its Methodology Committee.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of Paul Armstrong, Jose Benuzillo, Brock O'Neil, Emma Woo, and Lisa Simpson in developing this framework as well as AcademyHealth, the ABIM Foundation and the Donaghue Foundation for supporting this work.

References (54)

  • S.E. Thurnheer et al.

    Benefits of mobile apps in pain management: systematic review

    JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

    (2018)
  • A. Gorini et al.

    A neurofeedback-based intervention to reduce post-operative pain in lung cancer patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

    JMIR Res Protoc

    (2015)
  • E. Elbogen

    Pain Management Using Mobile Technology in Veterans with PTSD and TBI

    (2017)
  • S. Berrouiguet et al.

    Fundamentals for future mobile-health (mHealth): a systematic review of mobile phone and web-based text messaging in mental health

    J Med Internet Res

    (2016)
  • A.K. Hall et al.

    Mobile text messaging for health: a systematic review of reviews

    Annu Rev Publ Health

    (2015)
  • E. Wickland

    October 25; Factors behind the Adoption of School-Based Telehealth

    (2016)
  • A.H. Talal et al.

    Integrated, co-located, telemedicine-based treatment approaches for hepatitis C virus management in opioid use disorder patients on methadone

    Clin Infect Dis

    (2019)
  • C. Zhou et al.

    The impact of project ECHO on participant and patient outcomes: a systematic review

    Acad Med

    (2016)
  • E.W. Verkerk et al.

    Limit, lean or listen? A typology of low-value care that gives direction in de-implementation

    Interntional Journal for Quality in Health Care

    (2018)
  • Policy for device software functions and mobile medical applications. U.S. Food and Drug administration

  • S. Veazie et al.

    Rapid evidence review of mobile applications for self-management of diabetes

    J Gen Intern Med

    (2018)
  • M.E. Larsen et al.

    Using science to sell apps: evaluation of mental health app store quality claims

    npj Digital Medicine

    (2019)
  • S. Akbar et al.

    Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review

    J Am Med Inf Assoc

    (2020)
  • T.B. Plante et al.

    Validation of the instant blood pressure smartphone app

    JAMA Intern Med

    (2016)
  • J.C. Alexander et al.

    Comparison of smartphone application-based vital sign monitors without external hardware versus those used in clinical practice: a prospective trial

    J Clin Monit Comput

    (2017)
  • L. Uscher-Pines et al.

    Access and quality of care in direct-to-consumer telemedicine

    Telemed J e Health: the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association

    (2016)
  • K.N. Ray et al.

    Antibiotic prescribing during pediatric direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits

    Pediatrics

    (2019)
  • Cited by (9)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text