Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: Calculating the return on investment of mobile healthcare

Back to article

  1. Misquoted adherence estimate

    Nancy Oriol, Harvard Medical School, The Family Van

    8 June 2011

    On page 8, the authors incorrectly state that: "NCPP estimations assume a 30% non-compliance with treatment". In fact, as stated in their methods (Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006, 31(1):52-61) , NCPP specifically addresses patient adherence in its calculation of effectiveness of each intervention as follows: "Effectiveness = (percent who would accept the preventive service once offered) X (sensitivity of screening or assessment) X (adherence with follow-up treatment or advice to change behavior) X (effectiveness of prevention, treatment, or behavior change)". For example, in calculating the effectiveness of brief counseling services such as smoking cessation, NCPP projected patient adherence to be less than 1%

    Competing interests


  2. Revised ED avoidance estimate for use in ROI algorithm

    Nancy Oriol, Harvard Medical School

    19 March 2013

    Upon revisiting our source for estimating emergency department visits avoided (Peter Cunningham's July 2006 Health Affairs article "What Accounts for Differences in Use of Hospital Emergency Departments Across US Communities?") we noted that we had incorrectly interpreted its Exhibit 4 as additive data as opposed to discreet categorical data. The national mid-point between High-ED-use and Low-ED-use communities for uninsured and medicaid populations as a proportion of all outpatient visits is 22%. Therefore the value for ED visits avoided in the ROI algorithm should be revised to 22% from 44% with a concomindent change in ROI from 36:1 to 33:1. We have revised the algorithm on our publicly available materials.

    Competing interests