mICF poster 6 (joanne) micf cost and impact evaluation

1. We present the content of work pqckage 5 which focuses on the Impact and economic
evaluation of the project. This work will occur after content specification (WP2), lean MVP design (WP3)
and disciplined in-market experimentation (WP4). These activities will be the basis for analysis of the
use of the mICF solution in integrated care.
Abstract
1. Net benefits include both positive
and negative impacts of the
product (e.g. time and cost
savings, and expanded markets)
2. System quality includes measures
of adaptability, availability,
reliability, and response time, as
well as usability
3. With regard to information quality
the data produced with the mICF
solution will be assessed in
regards to its trustworthiness,
validity, completeness, relevance,
and ease of understanding
4. Data exchange will be assessed
• between caregivers
• between service users and
service providers
• between clinical settings and
other service providers
• practices and workflows
• and especially data reuse
5. Perceived usefulness, acceptance
and use of information technology.
The perceived usefulness: “people
tend to use or not use an
application to the extent they
believe it will help perform their
job better”
6. Perceived ease of use: refers to
"the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular
system would be free of effort“1,2
7. To guarantee the validation of the
results, the evaluation will use
data triangulation with regard to
time, space, or persons,
investigator triangulation, theory
triangulation, and methods
triangulation3
This work package of the International
mICF Partnership focuses on the
impact and economic evaluation
through various research methods.
These methods will provide information
about the use of the mICF with
specific persons.
mICF can be a game changer in
addressing health inequality by
utilising service provider-driven and
service provider-owned data to
optimise individualised health service
provision and to strengthen systems
for health.
mICF work package 5
Impact and economic evaluation
17-23 October 2015
Manchester
United Kingdom
Poster Number: 000
WHO - FAMILY OF INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS NETWORK ANNUAL MEETING 2015
Valerius J1, Kraus de Camargo O2, Snyman S3, Saranto K4, Anttila H5, Paltamaa J6
on behalf of the International mICF partnership
1 International Health Information Management Association, United States; 2McMaster University, Canada;
3Stellenbosch University, South Africa; 4University of Eastern Finland, Finland; 5National Institute for Health
and Welfare, Finland; 6JAMK University of Applied Sciences, Finland
Methods & Materials
References
This work will occur after content
specification (WP2), lean MVP design
(WP3) and disciplined in-market
experimentation (WP4).
The goal of WP5 is to start with the
baseline analysis and primarily focus
on the cost and effect analysis post-6
months of usage of the mICF by user
group individuals (e.g. older persons,
adults, and children or their
caregivers) and health service
providers in various countries.
• Through quantitative and qualitative
methods measure the impact of the
mICF on user groups (e.g. older
persons, adults and children or their
caregivers)
• Compare the satisfaction of health
personnel with their use of the
mICF product with current products
used in their practise
• Demonstrate the interoperability of
the mICF with other electronic
health record products
• Share the findings of the impact and
cost evaluation as soon as data is
analysed (linkage to dissemination
and agile commercialisation (WP6)
• Conduct economic evaluation,
benefits, effectiveness and costs of
mICF use
Conclusions
1) Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease
of Use, and User Acceptance of lnformation
Technology. MIS Q [Internet].
1989;13(3):319–40. Available from:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276-
7783(198909)13:3<319:PUPEOU>2.0.CO;2-E‘
2) Abdekhoda M, Ahmadi M, Dehnad a, Hosseini a
F. Information technology acceptance in health
information management. Methods Inf Med.
2014;53(1):14–20.
3) 3Ammenwerth E, Duftschmid G, Gall W, Hackl
WO, Hoerbst A, Janzek-Hawlat S, et al. A
nationwide computerized patient medication
history: Evaluation of the Austrian pilot project
“e-Medikation.” Int J Med Inform.
2014;83(9):655–69.
4) Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW,
O’Brien, Stoddart BJ and GL. Methods for the
economic evaluation of health care
programmes [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.-05. 2005. 379 p. Available
from: http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:oxp:
obooks:9780198529453www.icfmobile.org
F
Introduction
1. The aim of the economic evaluation
is to establish the cost-effectiveness
in intervention settings4
2. The focus of this evaluation will be
the perception of receiving
personalised care by the users, the
quality of the shared decision
process between the service users
and service providers, the
knowledge and satisfaction of
service users or proxies with the
chosen intervention goals and the
degree of person-centeredness of
the processes of services delivered.
3. From an economic standpoint the
evaluation will assess the amount
of time spent by service providers
with service users and the
interventions chosen for the service
users.
4. Health service professionals that
use the mICF solution will assess
the time, service, and quality
aspects by comparing use to non-
use of the solution. The assessed
difference will show the NET costs
and NET benefits of the intervention
(use of mICF).
Benefits Economic evaluation
@ICFmobile