Health Technology Assessment: The Role of Total Cost of Ownership

Open access


Background: Recently the European Union, through its Horizon 2020 fund has awarded numerous research projects tasked with the development of cloud-based health technology solutions. A number of these projects have a specific focus on ambient assisted living (AAL) technologies; solutions that offer a unique opportunity to improve the quality of life of persons with mild cognitive impairments. The diffusion of these solutions across a European wide cloud infrastructure presents a novel opportunity to reduce economic pressures currently experienced by European health systems. However, no route to market framework currently exists for a European wide healthcare delivery system. Objectives: The goal of the paper is to conduct the review and develop the literature around technology assessment for AAL technologies and route to market frameworks. Methods/Approach: We highlight the role of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) when conducting a technology assessment by reviewing existent literature. Results: We discuss three TCO models that can support the assessment of AAL technologies. Conclusions: There is a gap in the analysis of TCO models in the context of AAL technologies particularly in public and private sector collaborations. TCO process should be developed into a key award criterion when conducting AAL technology assessment and procurements, thus aiding long term strategic decision making.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Angst C. M. Agarwal R. (2009) “Adoption of Electronic Health Records in the Presence of Privacy Concerns: The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Individual Persuasion” MIS Quarterly Vol. 33 No. 2 pp. 339-370.

  • 2. Bittner A. K. Wykstra S. L. Yoshinaga P. D. Li T. (2015) “Telerehabilitation for people with low vision” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews No. 8.

  • 3. Bryman A. Bell E. (2007) Business Research Methods Oxford University Press.

  • 4. Caldwell N. Bakker E. Read J. (2007) “The purchasing process in public procurement” in Knight L. Harland C. Telgen J Callender G. McKen J. (Eds.) Public Procurement International Cases and Commentary England Routledge.

  • 5. Carr L. P. Ittner C. D. (1992) “Measuring the cost of ownership” Journal of Cost Management Vol. 6 No. 3 pp. 42-51.

  • 6. Central Statistics Office (2012) Profile 2: Older and Younger Dublin: Stationery Office.

  • 7. Cusack C. M. Byrne C. Hook J. M. McGowan J. Poon E. G. Zafar A. (2009) “A Health Information Technology Evaluation Toolkit: 2009 Update” AHRQ Publication No. 9 pp. 1-59.

  • 8. D’Arcy J. Hovav A. and Galletta D. (2009) “User awareness of security countermeasures and its impact on information systems misuse: A deterrence approach” Information Systems Research Vol. 20 No. 1 pp. 79-98.

  • 9. Ellram L. M. (1995) “Total cost of ownership: An analysis approach for purchasing” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Vol. 25 No. 8 pp. 4-23.

  • 10. Ellram L. M. Siferd S. P. (1998) “Total Cost of Ownership: A key concept in Strategic Cost Management Decisions” Journal of Business Logistics Vol. 19 No. 1 pp. 55-84.

  • 11. Eurostat (2011) “Population projections” European Commission available at: (7 June 2017).

  • 12. Frontera W. R. Bean J. F Damiano D. Ehrlich-Jones L. Fried-Oken M. Jette A. Jung R. Lieber R. L. Malec J. F. Mueller M. J. Ottenbacher K. J. Tansey K. E. Thompson A. (2017) “Rehabilitation Research at the National Institutes of Health : Moving the Field Forward (Executive Summary)” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy Vol. 71 No. 3 pp. 1–12.

  • 13. Glynn L. Casey M. Walsh J. Hayes P. S. Harte R. P. Heaney D. (2015) “Patients’ views and experiences of technology based self-management tools for the treatment of hypertension in the community: A qualitative study” BMC Family Practice Vol. 16 No. 1.

  • 14. Health Information & Quality Authority (2017) “HIQA publishes guide to health technology assessment” available at: (25 November 2017).

  • 15. Health Information & Quality Authority (2010) “Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland” available at: (25 November 2017).

  • 16. Harris P. R. Sillence E. Briggs P. (2011) “Perceived Threat and Corroboration: Key Factors That Improve a Predicitive Model of Trust in Internet-based Health Information and Advice” Journal of Medical Internet Research Vol. 13 No. 3.

  • 17. Hong W. Thong J. Y. L. (2013) “Internet privacy concerns: An integrated conceptualization and four empirical studies” MIS Quarterly Vol. 37 No. 1 pp. 275-298.

  • 18. Hurkens K. Wynstra F (2006) “The concept “Total Value of Ownership”: A case study approach” available at: (7 June 2017).

  • 19. INAHTA (2017) “Health Technology Assessment” available at: (25 November 17)

  • 20. Jacquemard T. Novitzky P. O’Brolcháin F. Smeaton A. F. Gordijn B. (2014) “Challenges and opportunities of lifelog technologies: a literature review and critical analysis” Science and Engineering Ethics Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 379-409.

  • 21. Janssen R. Hettinga M. Prins H. Visser S. Mengo R. Krediet I. Haaker T. Bodenstaff L. (2013) “Developing evidence guidelines for eHealth small and medium-sized enterprises” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on eHealth Telemedicine and Social Medicine (eTELEMED) pp. 92-95.

  • 22. Jesson J. Matheson L. Lacey F. M. (2011) Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques SAGE Publications.

  • 23. Kidholm K. Ekeland A. G. Jensen L. K. Rasmussen J. Pedersen C. D. Bowes A. Flottorp. S. A. Bech M. (2012) “Model for Assessment of Telemedicine Applications: Mast” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care Vol. 28 No. 1 pp. 44-51.

  • 24. Leenders M. Johnson F. Flynn A. Fearon H. (2006) Purchasing and Supply Management 13th edition New York Irwin McGraw Hill.

  • 25. National Institute for Health Research (2017) “Health Technology Assessment” available at: (25 November 2017).

  • 26. National Library of Medicine (2004) “HTA 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment” available at: (25 November 2017).

  • 27. Novitzky P. Smeaton A. F. Chen C. Irving K. Jacquemard T. O’Brolcháin F. O’Mathúna D. Gordijn B. (2015) “A Review of Contemporary Work on the Ethics of Ambient Assisted Living Technologies for People with Dementia” Science and Engineering Ethics Vol. 21 No. 3 pp. 707-765.

  • 28. O’Donnell J. C. Pham S. V. Pashos C. L. Miller D. W. Smith M. D. (2009) “Health Technology Assessment: Lessons Learned from Around the World—An Overview” Value in Health Vol. 12 No. 2 pp. S1-S5.

  • 29. SBJ (2011) “Statistical handbook of Japan 2011” Statistics Bureau and the Director-General for Policy Planning of Japan available at: (7 June 2017).

  • 30. Shin H. Benton W. C. (2007) “A quantity discount approach to supply chain coordination” European Journal of Operational Research Vol. 180 No. 2 pp. 601-616.

  • 31. Smith H. J. Milberg S. J. Burke S. J. (1996) “Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns about Organizational Practices” MIS Quarterly Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 167-196.

  • 32. Statista (2015) “Statistics and facts about mobile app usage” available at: (22 June 2016).

  • 33. Van Weele A. J. (2004) Purchasing and Supply Chain Management 4th edition Cengage Learning Business Press.

  • 34. World Health Organisation (2016) “From Innovation to Implementation: eHealth in the WHO European Region” available at: (7 June 2017).

  • 35. World Health Organisation (2017) “Health technology assessment” available at: (7 June 2017).

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.165
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.388

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 127 127 18
PDF Downloads 108 108 14