The Conceptualization of Value in the Value Proposition of New Health Technologies; Comment on “Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies”

Document Type: Commentary

Authors

1 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

2 Institute of Allied Health Professions, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Abstract

Lehoux et al provide a highly valid contribution in conceptualizing value in value propositions for new health technologies and developing an analytic framework that illustrates the interplay between health innovation supply-side logic (the logic of emergence) and demand-side logic (embedding in the healthcare system). This commentary brings forth several considerations on this article. First, a detailed stakeholder analysis provides the necessary premonition of potential hurdles in the development, implementation and dissemination of a new technology. This can be achieved by categorizing potential stakeholder groups on the basis of the potential impact of future technology. Secondly, the conceptualization of value in value propositions of new technologies should not only embrace business/economic and clinical values but also ethical, professional and cultural values, as well as factoring in the notion of usability and acceptance of new technology. As a final note, the commentary emphasises the point that technology should facilitate delivery of care without negatively affecting doctorpatient communications, physical examination skills, and development of clinical knowledge.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Lehoux P, Miller FA, Daudelin G, Denis J. Providing value to new health technology: the early contribution of entrepreneurs, investors, and regulatory agencies. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017; Forthcoming. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.11
  2. van Hoof J, Rutten PGS, Struck C, Huisman ERCM, Kort HSM. The integrated and evidence-based design of healthcare environments. Archit Eng Des Manag. 2015;11(4):243-263. doi:10.1080/17452007.2014.892471
  3. Holtkamp FC, Verkerk MJ, van Hoof J, Wouters EJM. Mapping user activities and user environments during the client intake and examination phase: An exploratory study from the perspective of ankle foot orthosis users. Technol Disabil. 2017;28(4):145-157. doi:10.3233/TAD-160452
  4. van Hoof J, Verkerk MJ. Developing an integrated design model incorporating technology philosophy for the design of healthcare environments: a case analysis of facilities for psychogeriatric and psychiatric care in The Netherlands. Technol Soc. 2013;35(1):1-13. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2012.11.002
  5. Peek STM, Wouters EJM, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJM. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):235-248. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004
  6. Adams C, Pert A, Ross P, Aziz B. Temporal stakeholder analysis of future technologies: exploring the impact of the ioV. Cutter I Journal. 2015;28(7):24-29.
  7. Adams C. A tool for exploring technological evolution and impact within organisations. J Decis Syst. 2009;18(1):75-97. doi:10.3166/jds.18.75-97
  8. Bouwhuis DG. A framework for the acceptance of gerontechnology in relation to smart living. In: van Hoof J, Demiris G, Wouters EJM, eds. Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017:33-51. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01583-5_3
  9. Jonas H. Technology and responsibility: reflections on the new tasks of ethics. In: Sandler RL, ed. Ethics and Emerging Technologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2014:37-47. doi:10.1057/9781137349088_3.
  10. Sandler RL. Introduction: technology and ethics. In: Sandler RL, ed. Ethics and Emerging Technologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014:1-23. doi:10.1057/9781137349088_1
  11. Wouters EJM, Weijers TCM, Nieboer ME. Professional values: the use of technology and the new generation of clinicians. In: van Hoof J, Demiris G, Wouters EJM, eds. Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017:147-154. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01583-5_51.
  12. Pacey A. Technology: practice and culture. In: Sandler RL, ed. Ethics and Emerging Technologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2014:27-36. doi:10.1057/9781137349088_2
  13. Moors E, Peine A. Valuing Diagnostic Innovations: Towards Responsible Health Technology Assessment. In: Boenink M, van Lente H, Moors E, eds. Emerging Technologies for Diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease: Innovating with Care. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016:245-261. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-54097-3_13
  14. Winner L. Technologies as Forms of Life. In: Sandler RL, ed. Ethics and Emerging Technologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014:48-60. doi:10.1057/9781137349088_4
  15. Lu J. Will medical technology deskill doctors? Int Educ Stud. 2016;9(7):130. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n7p130