Dataset Information

Hospital Investment Decisions in Healthcare 4.0 Technologies: Scoping Review and Framework for Exploring Challenges, Trends, and Research Directions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Alternative approaches to analyzing and evaluating health care investments in state-of-the-art technologies are being increasingly discussed in the literature, especially with the advent of Healthcare 4.0 (H4.0) technologies or eHealth. Such investments generally involve computer hardware and software that deal with the storage, retrieval, sharing, and use of health care information, data, and knowledge for communication and decision-making. Besides, the use of these technologies significantly increases when addressed in bundles. However, a structured and holistic approach to analyzing investments in H4.0 technologies is not available in the literature.

Objective

This study aims to analyze previous research related to the evaluation of H4.0 technologies in hospitals and characterize the most common investment approaches used. We propose a framework that organizes the research associated with hospitals' H4.0 technology investment decisions and suggest five main research directions on the topic.

Methods

To achieve our goal, we followed the standard procedure for scoping reviews. We performed a search in the Crossref, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with the keywords investment, health, industry 4.0, investment, health technology assessment, healthcare 4.0, and smart in the title, abstract, and keywords of research papers. We retrieved 5701 publications from all the databases. After removing papers published before 2011 as well as duplicates and performing further screening, we were left with 244 articles, from which 33 were selected after in-depth analysis to compose the final publication portfolio.

Results

Our findings show the multidisciplinary nature of the research related to evaluating hospital investments in H4.0 technologies. We found that the most common investment approaches focused on cost analysis, single technology, and single decision-maker involvement, which dominate bundle analysis, H4.0 technology value considerations, and multiple decision-maker involvement.

Conclusions

Some of our findings were unexpected, given the interrelated nature of H4.0 technologies and their multidimensional impact. Owing to the absence of a more holistic approach to H4.0 technology investment decisions, we identified five promising research directions for the topic: development of economic valuation methodologies tailored for H4.0 technologies; accounting for technology interrelations in the form of bundles; accounting for uncertainties in the process of evaluating such technologies; integration of administrative, medical, and patient perspectives into the evaluation process; and balancing and handling complexity in the decision-making process.

SUBMITTER: Vassolo RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8430851 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: As public health strategists and policymakers explore different approaches to lessen the devastating effects of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), blockchain technology has emerged as a resource that can be utilized in numerous ways. Many blockchain technologies have been proposed or implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive reviews have been conducted to uncover and summarise the main feature of these technologies. Objective: This study aims to explore proposed or implemented blockchain technologies used to mitigate the COVID-19 challenges as reported in the literature. Methods: We conducted a scoping review in line with guidelines of PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). To identify relevant studies, we searched 11 bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and MEDLINE) and conducted backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. The study selection and data extraction were conducted by 2 reviewers independently. Data extracted from the included studies was narratively summarised and described. Results: 19 of 225 retrieved studies met eligibility criteria in this review. The included studies reported 10 used cases of blockchain to mitigate COVID-19 challenges; the most prominent use cases were contact tracing and immunity passports. While the blockchain technology was developed in 10 studies, its use was proposed in the remaining 9 studies. The public blockchain technology was the most commonly utilized type in the included studies. All together, 8 different consensus mechanisms were used in the included studies. Out of 10 studies that identified the used platform, 9 studies used Ethereum to run the blockchain. Solidity was the most prominent programming language used in developing blockchain technology in the included studies. The transaction cost was reported in only 4 of the included studies and varied between USD 10-10 and USD 5. The expected latency and expected scalability were not identified in the included studies. Conclusion: Blockchain technologies are expected to play an integral role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Many possible applications of blockchain were found in this review; however, most of them are not mature enough to reveal their expected impact in the fight against COVID-19. We encourage governments, health authorities, and policymakers to consider all blockchain applications suggested in the current review to combat COVID-19 challenges. There is a pressing need to empirically examine how effective blockchain technologies are in mitigating COVID-19 challenges. Further studies are required to assess the performance of blockchain technologies' fight against COVID-19 in terms of transaction cost, scalability, and/or latency when using different consensus algorithms, platforms, and access types.

Project description:BackgroundTo ensure quality care, clinicians need skills, knowledge, and attitudes related to technology that can be measured.ObjectiveThis paper sought out competencies for mobile technologies and/or an approach to define them.MethodsA scoping review was conducted to answer the following research question, "What skills are needed for clinicians and trainees to provide quality care via mHealth, have they been published, and how can they be made measurable and reproducible to teach and assess them?" The review was conducted in accordance with the 6-stage scoping review process starting with a keyword search in PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, APA PsycNET, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. The literature search focused on keywords in 4 concept areas: (1) competencies, (2) mobile technologies, (3) telemedicine mode, and (4) health. Moreover, 2 authors independently, in parallel, screened the search results for potentially relevant studies based on titles and abstracts. The authors reviewed the full-text articles for final inclusion based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were keywords used from concept area 1 (competencies) and 2 (mobile technologies) and either 3 (telemedicine mode) or 4 (health). Exclusion criteria included, but were not limited to, keywords used from a concept area in isolation, discussion of skills abstractly, outline or listing of what clinicians need without detail, and listing immeasurable behaviors.ResultsFrom a total of 1232 results, the authors found 78 papers eligible for a full-text review and found 14 papers directly relevant to the 4 key concepts. Although few studies specifically discussed skills, the majority were clinical studies, and the literature included no lists of measurable behaviors or competency sets for mobile technology. Therefore, a framework for mobile technology competencies was built according to the review, expert consensus, and recommendations of the Institute of Medicine's Health Professions Education Summit and Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education framework. This framework borrows from existing competency framework domains in telepsychiatry and social media (patient care, medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, systems-based practice, professionalism, and interpersonal skills and communication) and added domains of mHealth clinical decision support, device/technology assessment/selection, and information flow management across an electronic health record platform. mHealth Asynchronous components require additional traditional learning, teaching, supervisory and evaluation practices. Interactive curricula with case-, problem-, and system-based teaching may help faculty focus on decision making and shape skills and attitudes to complement clinical exposure.ConclusionsResearch is needed on how to customize implementation and evaluation of mHealth competencies and to ensure skill development is linked to the quality of care. This will require the management of organizational change with technology and the creation of a positive electronic culture in a complex policy and regulatory environment.

Project description:Many institutions worldwide are considering how to include uncertainty about future changes in sea-levels and storm surges into their investment decisions regarding large capital infrastructures. Here we examine how to characterize deeply uncertain climate change projections to support such decisions using Robust Decision Making analysis. We address questions regarding how to confront the potential for future changes in low probability but large impact flooding events due to changes in sea-levels and storm surges. Such extreme events can affect investments in infrastructure but have proved difficult to consider in such decisions because of the deep uncertainty surrounding them. This study utilizes Robust Decision Making methods to address two questions applied to investment decisions at the Port of Los Angeles: (1) Under what future conditions would a Port of Los Angeles decision to harden its facilities against extreme flood scenarios at the next upgrade pass a cost-benefit test, and (2) Do sea-level rise projections and other information suggest such conditions are sufficiently likely to justify such an investment? We also compare and contrast the Robust Decision Making methods with a full probabilistic analysis. These two analysis frameworks result in similar investment recommendations for different idealized future sea-level projections, but provide different information to decision makers and envision different types of engagement with stakeholders. In particular, the full probabilistic analysis begins by aggregating the best scientific information into a single set of joint probability distributions, while the Robust Decision Making analysis identifies scenarios where a decision to invest in near-term response to extreme sea-level rise passes a cost-benefit test, and then assembles scientific information of differing levels of confidence to help decision makers judge whether or not these scenarios are sufficiently likely to justify making such investments. Results highlight the highly-localized and context dependent nature of applying Robust Decision Making methods to inform investment decisions.