the mobile health maturity index - mhealth business solutions made simpl(er)

Research Consulting Insight

The Mobile Health Maturity IndexSolutions for the modern digital Healthcare environment

“A short introduction to the Mindshifts MMI mobile Health feasibility evaluation tool”


Agenda1. SECTION: What is the Mobile Health Maturity (MMI) tool? – An overview of the tool, its usage proposition & the challenges

it tackles

2. SECTION: What are the methods used to evaluate the market features?– An exploration of some the methods used in the tool

3. SECTION: What are the main outputs and usage scenarios for the MMI– How the various outputs of the MMI are to be used in real-

world service launch

4. SECTION: Further Information– Where to find additional information & access to the tool



What is the Mobile Health Maturity (MMI) tool?



MMI Mission Statement

“The Mobile Health Maturity Index (MMI) is an insight and evaluation tool designed to gauge

mobile health service maturity”


The MMI Proposition

“It is unique in taking a 360⁰ view of target markets, considering all qualitative and

quantitative indicator features impacting launch of mHealth services”

The MMI is the only tool that considers all these challenge vectors, incorporating quantitative

AND qualitative indicators


What are the methods used to evaluate the market features?



Deep Dive Methods

Currently there are 80 feasibility criteria covered by the tool, ranging from mobile penetration to consumer acceptance of mobile health services.

In all instances feasibility criteria are balanced by use of weighting criteria to tackle the unique

characteristics and market nuances of each country*

*e.g. social acceptance of mobile health services or degree of health ministry support


Deep Dive Questioningfeasibility criteria are split into feasibility groupings

(examples are included below)*

Technology Social/Economic/Health Hardware/Devices Regulation/legislation

Applicable network coverage Fibre backbones linking medical sitesNumber cell towers coverageBroadband throughputGeographical coverage5 year subs growth rateAverage broadband

* The full list of feasibility criteria can be provided on request.** Weighting is used for significant criteria and to take account of fundamental features within specific countries

Device penetrationNo. shared devicesUse of devices by CHWs Penetration of devices within health facilitiesMale female split device ownershipDevice operating system predominanceUse of diagnosticEtc

Feasibility criteria include both qualitative and quantitative considerations**

Etc... Etc...

Per capita incomeOut of pocket spend on healthcareGINI Co-efficientDegree of NGO funding Government spend on healthPenetration of financial services, mobile payments, micro-payments and micro-commerce

EtcEtc...

eHealth legislationElectronic data records migration plan e-prescription legislationPatient/data protection legislationDegree of health Ministry/political support for digital health services

Etc...


Methods In Detail

In each instance a unique probability distribution, or S-Curve, is generated for the feasibility criteria.

An example of how this curve is generated and how it is then used follows.


Service development ExampleSe

rvic

e co

mpl

exity

(Y A

xis)

Time (X Axis) More Time

Addressable market penetration

SATURATED MARKET

MAINSTREAM MARKET

NICHE MARKETEarly adopters

Early followers

Mass adopters

Late adopters

Predominant Customer Segment type

Status of market development

The ‘VAS Development Feasibility’ criteria S-Curve relies on an innovation diffusion model.


Service development ExampleMobile services evolve at different points along a diffusion scale becoming more complex over time, driven by increased use and the interplay and development of customer segments, see below...

Serv

ice

com

plex

ity (Y

Axi

s)

Time (X Axis)

Less complex

More complex

Less Time More Time

SimpleCommunicationVoiceSMS

Simple VASSMS InfoNewsHoroscopesDating

42 other Service categories

tracked.

Position of service on the diffusion scale illustrates comparative complexity of service and degree of customer penetration


Service development ExampleMobile health services also evolve at different points, driven by the relentless development of mobile applications and services, see below...

Serv

ice

com

plex

ity (Y

Axi

s)

Time (X Axis)

Less complex

More complex

Less Time More Time

SMS HealthRegistrationNotification

IVRRegistrationInfo services

30 other mHealth service categories

tracked

Position of service on the diffusion scale illustrates comparative complexity of service and degree of customer penetration


Service development ExampleThe MMI plots the status of mobile applications and services & the corresponding status of mobile health service development in each target country, shown below.

Serv

ice

com

plex

ity (Y

Axi

s)

Time (X Axis)

Less complex

More complex

Less Time More Time

Position of mobile VAS development

Position of mHealth development


Methods In DetailVAS Development is derived by considering 42 VAS indicators e.g. number of VAS service developers, and important enablers e.g. penetration of compatible mobile devices.

Each indicator is allocated a score based upon a comparison of the range for that indicator. The range is generated by considering all the countries measured by the MMI and any weighting criteria.e.g.

Country A penetration = 65% population Country B penetration = 35% populationCountry C...etc

Range sits between X & Z with median at Y – the country score Allocated based on this range

Example weighting factor - a 0.5 weighting is added if a large number of devices are of an advanced device type – this would counteract a low overall penetration to some extent


Methods In Detail

For more complex service considerations multiple criteria are considered, e.g.

A score is then derived from the routed responses to the questions

Example: Qs. Does the country offer mobile banking

Qs. What penetration of the population use the service

Qs. Can the service be defined as complex i.e. How many and what types of advanced services are offered e.g. micro-transactions, micro-loans, device transaction (payments),

micro-insurance

Qs. Where does it rank against the best performing country for this indicator?

Qs. Where does it rank against the best performing country for this indicator?


Methods In Detail

The VAS Development scoring criteria also considers 30 mHealth service types and enablers

for these services e.g. customer acceptance of mHealth services*.

The aggregate of each of these VAS evaluations produces an index score that is then ranked

against other countries and plotted against the innovation diffusion scale.

*How qualitative assertions are derived is discussed later in this presentation


What are the main outputs and usage scenarios for the MMI?



Bringing it all Together

The example of VAS Development given in the preceding slides is just one of the feasibility criteria groupings considered by the MMI.

By combining the feasibility criteria evaluations the MMI user gains a view of the current state of

mHealth development in their target country, reported as a feasibility index score.



Qualitative as well as quantitative Input

“Objective analysis requires a combination of quantitative and qualitative research inputs.”

The MMI uses multiple interviews from key stakeholders including relevant ministries of health, industry spokespersons/experts and end-user panels made up of multiple socio-

economic segments and mHealth user segments.


Qualitative as well as quantitative Input

In so doing the MMI Feasibility score can be refined and advanced to give a more insightful view of target markets and decrease the risks

involved in market launch.

Unique Country specific features are also calculated by using this approach, allowing for

the fine-tuning of feasibility scores using weighting on important country-specific features

liable to impact mhealth service launch.


The combined output

By comparing the feasibility index score against other countries the MMI user gains insights on

the market potential (mHealth feasibility) of the target country.


OVERALL COMPARATIVE FEASIBILITY SCORE**

0.48

0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.50.1

VAS & MHEALTH DEVELOPMENT

TECHNOLOGY

HEALTH BURDEN

SOCIOECONOMIC

* The full list of feasibility criteria can be provided on request** Compared against total MMI countries

LEGISLATION/REGULATION

LAWS/ PATIENT PRIVACY

*

FEAS

IBIL

ITY

CRI

TERI

A

INFRASTRUCTURE


Further InformationPaul Merry: [email protected]