Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Home Monitoring in Chronic Disease Management

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 13 October 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

Many countries have considered telemedicine and home monitoring of patients as a solution to the demographic challenges that health-care systems face. However, reviews of economic evaluations of telemedicine have identified methodological problems in many studies as they do not comply with guidelines. The aim of this study was to examine economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials of home monitoring in chronic disease management and hereby to explore the resources included in the programme costs, the types of health-care utilisation that change as a result of home monitoring and discuss the value of economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials of home monitoring on the basis of the studies identified. A scoping review of economic evaluations of home monitoring of patients with chronic disease based on randomised controlled trials and including information on the programme costs and the costs of equipment was carried out based on a Medline (PubMed) search. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies include both costs of equipment and use of staff, but there is large variation in the types of equipment and types of tasks for the staff included in the costs. Equipment costs constituted 16–73% of the total programme costs. In six of the nine studies, home monitoring resulted in a reduction in primary care or emergency contacts. However, in total, home monitoring resulted in increased average costs per patient in six studies and reduced costs in three of the nine studies. The review is limited by the small number of studies found and the restriction to randomised controlled trials, which can be problematic in this area due to lack of blinding of patients and healthcare professionals and the difficulty of implementing organisational changes in hospital departments for the limited period of a trial. Furthermore, our results may be based on assessments of older telemedicine interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 13 October 2017

    Table 2, ‘Stoddart [19]’ row: The cell entry in the ‘Mean cost per control patient (SE)’ column,

References

  1. Commission Communication. Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and societies. COM/2008/689 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0689:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 01 Aug 2011.

  2. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández J, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f1035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. AlDossary S, Martin-Khan MG, Bradford NK, Smith AC. A systematic review of the methodologies used to evaluate telemedicine service initiatives in hospital facilities. Int J Med Inform. 2017;97:171–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ. 2002;324(7351):1434–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergmo TS. Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2009;7(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mistry H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mistry H, Hyeladzira G, Oppong R. Critical appraisal of published systematic reviews assessing the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies. Telemed e-Health. 2014;20(7):609–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Udsen FW, Hejlesen O, Ehlers LH. A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20:212–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grustam AS, Severens JL, Nijnatten J, Koymans R, Vrijhoef HJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients: a literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(01):59–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Luzi D, Pecoraro F, Tamburis O. Economic evaluation of health IT. Page 165–180. In: Ammenwerth E, Rigby M, Eds. Evidence-based Health Informatics and the Scientific Development of the Field. Evidence-Based Health Informatics: Promoting Safety and Efficiency Through Scientific Methods and Ethical Policy (2016).

  12. Bergmo TS. How to measure costs and benefits of ehealth interventions: an overview of methods and frameworks. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(11):e254. doi:10.2196/jmir.4521.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Levati S, Campbell P, Frost R, et al. Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:17. doi:10.1186/s40814-016-0058-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management–an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:211–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. European Central Bank. Exchange rates. http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/browse.do?node=9691296. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.

  17. Eurostat. Harmonised Index of Consumer prices (HICP). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/hicp/data/database?p_p_id=NavTreeportletprod_WAR_NavTreeportletprod_INSTANCE_BO6Fgp25CkI9&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_count=3. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.

  18. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernandex J-L, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;20(346):f103.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stoddart A, van der Pol M, Pinnock H, Hanley J, et al. Telemonitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cost and cost-utility analysis of a randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2015;21(2):108–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De San Miguel K, Smith J, Lewin G. Telehealth remote monitoring for community-dwelling older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Telemed e-Health. 2013;19(9):652–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jódar-Sánchez F, Ortega F, Parra C, et al. Cost-utility analysis of a telehealth programme for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treated with long-term oxygen therapy. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(6):307–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stoddart A, Hanley J, Wild S, et al. Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;3(5):e002681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Udsen FW, Lilholt PH, Hejlesen O, Ehlers L. Cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the Danish ‘TeleCare North’ cluster-randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e014616.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fasterholdt I, Gerstrøm M, Rasmussen BSB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring of diabetic foot ulcer patients. Health Inform J 2016;1460458216663026. doi:10.1177/1460458216663026.

  25. Ryan D, Price D, Musgrave SD, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of mobile phone supported self-monitoring of asthma: multicenter, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e1756.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cui Y, Doupe M, Katz A, Nyhof P, Forget EL. Economic evaluation of Manitoba Health Lines in the management of congestive heart failure. Healthc Policy. 2013;9(2):36–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, et al. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):843–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kidholm K, Jensen LK, Kjølhede T, Nielsen E, Horup MB. Validity of the model for assessment of telemedicine: a Delphi study. J Telemed Telecare. 2016;1:357633X16686553. doi:10.1177/1357633X16686553.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Liu JLY, Wyatt JC. The case for randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:173–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Craig JA, Carr L, Hutton J, Glanville J, Iglesias CP, Sims AJ. A review of the economic tools for assessing new medical devices. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(1):15–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Madsen LB, Christiansen T, Kirkegaard P, Pedersen EB. Economic evaluation of home blood pressure telemonitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Blood Press. 2011;20(2):117–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Haesum LK, Soerensen N, Dinesen B, et al. Cost-utility analysis of a tele-rehabilitation program: a case study of COPD patients. Telemed e-Health. 2012;18(9):688–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zanaboni P, Landolina M, Marzegalli M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):e106. doi:10.2196/jmir.2587.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Calò L, Gargaro A, De Ruvo E, et al. Economic impact of remote monitoring on ordinary follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators as compared with conventional in-hospital visits. A single-center prospective and randomized study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2013;37(1):69–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lise Kvistgaard Jensen and Claire Gudex, Odense University Hospital, for language editing of the manuscript and Christian Kronborg, COHERE, University of Southern Denmark for valuable comments on behalf of the Center for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Kristian Kidholm

  2. MedCom, Forskerparken 10, 5230, Odense M, Denmark

    Mie Borch Dahl Kristensen

Authors
  1. Kristian Kidholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mie Borch Dahl Kristensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KK contributed to development of the aim of the study, selection of the method for the review, literature search, assessment of the articles, charting of data, analysis and interpretation of data. MBDK contributed to development of the aim of the study, literature search, assessment of the articles, charting of data, analysis and interpretation of data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristian Kidholm.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors Kristian Kidholm and Mie Borch Dahl Kristensen declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The review was funded by the Research Council at Odense University Hospital.

Additional information

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0356-4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kidholm, K., Kristensen, M.B.D. A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Home Monitoring in Chronic Disease Management. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 16, 167–176 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0351-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0351-9

Search

Navigation