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 mICFsolution 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 partnership1 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 lnformationTechnology. 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 healthinformation management. Methods Inf Med. 2014;53(1):14–20.

3) 3Ammenwerth E, Duftschmid G, Gall W, HacklWO, Hoerbst A, Janzek-Hawlat S, et al. A nationwide computerized patient medicationhistory: 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 theeconomic evaluation of health careprogrammes [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