Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Economic Evaluations of Remote Patient Monitoring for Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review.
De Guzman, Keshia R; Snoswell, Centaine L; Taylor, Monica L; Gray, Leonard C; Caffery, Liam J.
  • De Guzman KR; Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: uqkdeguz@uq.edu.au.
  • Snoswell CL; Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
  • Taylor ML; Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
  • Gray LC; Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
  • Caffery LJ; Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Value Health ; 25(6): 897-913, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2004304
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

This study aimed to systematically review and summarize economic evaluations of noninvasive remote patient monitoring (RPM) for chronic diseases compared with usual care.

METHODS:

A systematic literature search identified economic evaluations of RPM for chronic diseases, compared with usual care. Searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit using keyword synonyms for RPM and economics identified articles published from up until September 2021. Title, abstract, and full-text reviews were conducted. Data extraction of study characteristics and health economic findings was performed. Article reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

RESULTS:

This review demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of RPM was dependent on clinical context, capital investment, organizational processes, and willingness to pay in each specific setting. RPM was found to be highly cost-effective for hypertension and may be cost-effective for heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There were few studies that investigated RPM for diabetes or other chronic diseases. Studies were of high reporting quality, with an average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards score of 81%. Of the final 34 included studies, most were conducted from the healthcare system perspective. Eighteen studies used cost-utility analysis, 4 used cost-effectiveness analysis, 2 combined cost-utility analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis, 1 used cost-consequence analysis, 1 used cost-benefit analysis, and 8 used cost-minimization analysis.

CONCLUSIONS:

RPM was highly cost-effective for hypertension and may achieve greater long-term cost savings from the prevention of high-cost health events. For chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, cost-effectiveness findings differed according to disease severity and there was limited economic evidence for diabetes interventions.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / Heart Failure / Hypertension Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Value Health Journal subject: Pharmacology Year: 2022 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / Heart Failure / Hypertension Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Value Health Journal subject: Pharmacology Year: 2022 Document Type: Article