Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Telemedicine, Outcomes and Policy Decisions

  • Practical Disease Management
  • Published:
Disease Management and Health Outcomes

Abstract

The rapid increase in telemedicine technologies has increased the demand for assessment studies to inform decision makers as to how feasible, efficient, effective, cost effective and/or cost saving the new technology is compared with a conventional alternative. In this article, we considered the main methods used for health technology assessment studies in the field of telemedicine, the types of outcome that are evaluated, and the application of the general assessment framework to the field of telemedicine.

Studies of telemedicine may consider technical outcomes, feasibility of applications, surrogate or actual clinical measures, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and economic issues. To date, only a few studies have measured clinical outcomes or HR-QOL to show the outcomes of telemedicine compared with a conventional alternative. In economic analyses of telemedicine, many studies are simply cost descriptions, that is, costs of the telemedicine alternative are shown. For decision-making purposes cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses would provide much better information.

The differences in healthcare systems between countries as well as the differences in costs and reimbursement methods make the decision-making process challenging. To reduce the burden in the decision-making process, it is recommended that the local conditions influencing results should be presented in studies. Sensitivity analysis can be used to show the changes in the results when the background variables in the decision-making process are changed.

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

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wootton R. Telemedicine: a cautious welcome. BM J 1996; 313: 1375–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mair F, Haycox A, May C, et al. A review of telemedicine cost-effectiveness studies. J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: 38–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ohinmaa A, Hailey D, Roine R. Elements for assessment of telemedicine applications. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 2001; 17 (2): 190–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. CMAJ 2001; 165: 765–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hakanson S, Gavelin C. What do we really know about the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: 133–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Whitten P, Kingsley C, Grigsby J. Results of a meta-analysis of cost-benefit research: is this a question worth asking? J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: 4–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsang M, Mok M, Kam G, et al. Improvement in diabetes control with a monitoring system based on a hand-held, touch-screen electronic diary. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7: 47–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mehra MR, Uber PA, Chomsky DB, et al. Emergence of electronic home monitoring in chronic heart failure: rationale, feasibility, and early results with the HomMed Sentry™- Observer™ system. Congest Heart Fail 2000; 6: 137–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Aris IB, Wagie A, Mariun N, et al. An internet-based blood pressure monitoring system for patients. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7: 51–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Giovas P, Papadoyannis D, Thomakos D, et al. Transmission of electrocardiograms from a moving ambulance. J Telemed Telecare 1998; 4 Suppl. 1: 5–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goh KYC, Lam CK, Poon WS. The impact of teleradiology on the inter-hospital transfer of neurosurgical patients. Br J Neurosurg 1997; 11: 52–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fery-Lemonnier E, Brayda E, Charpentier E, et al. Inter hospital transmission of radiological images for handling neurosurgical emergencies. Results of the evaluation [in French]. Paris: Comite d’Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques (CEDIT), 1996.

  13. Mair F, Whitten P. Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. BMJ 2000; 320: 1517–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Miller E. Telemedicine and doctor-patient communication: an analytical survey of the literature. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7: 1–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A. The evidence for benefits through telemedicine applications — what does the literature say? J Telemedicine Telecare. In press.

  16. Staquet M, Hays R, Fayers P (editors). Quality of life assessment in clinical trials — methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brommels M, Sintonen H, editors. Health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33 (5): 319–84.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Perceived health: age and sex comparisons in a community. J Epidemiol Community Health 1984; 38: 156–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brooks R, with the EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utility index mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med 2001; 33 (5): 328–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddard G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. 2nd ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1997.

  25. Gold MR, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dawson A, Cohen D, Candelier C, et al. Domiciliary midwifery support in high-risk pregnancy incorporating telephonic fetal heart rate monitoring: a health technology randomized assessment. J Telemed Telecare 1999; 5 (4): 220–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Harrison R, Clayton W, Wallace P. Virtual outreach: a telemedicine pilot study using a cluster-randomized controlled design. J Telemed Telecare 1999; 5 (2): 126–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hunkeler EM, Meresman IF, Hargreaves WA, et al. Efficacy of nurse telehealth care and peer support in augmenting treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9 (8): 700–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Johnston B, Wheeler L. Outcomes of the Kaiser Permanente tele-home health research project. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 40–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Piette JD, Weinberger M, McPhee SJ. The effect of automated calls with telephone nurse follow-up on patient-centered outcomes of diabetes care: a randomized, controlled trial. Med Care 2000; 38 (2): 218–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergmo T. An economic analysis of teleconsultation in otorhinolaryngology. J Telemed Telecare 1997; 3: 194–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ohinmaa A, Hailey D, Roine R. The assessment of telemedicine: general principles and a systematic review. Helsinki and Edmonton: STAKES and Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, 1999 Aug. Also available from URL: http://www.inahta.org [Accessed 2002 Apr 5].

  33. Bergmo TS. An economic analysis of teleradiology versus a visiting radiologist service. J Telemed Telecare 1996; 2: 136–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stensland J, Speedie SM, Iderker M, et al. The relative cost of outpatient telemedicine services. Telemed J 1999; 5 (3): 245–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Agha Z, Weinstein RS, Dunn BE. Cost minimization analysis of telepathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112 (4): 470–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wootton R, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, et al. Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care: societal cost-benefit analysis. BMJ 2000; 320: 1252–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Doze S, Simpson J, Hailey D, et al. Evaluation of a telepsychiatry pilot project. J Telemed Telecare 1999; 5: 38–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hailey D, Crowe B. Assessing the economic impact of telemedicine. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2000; 7: 187–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There were no sources of funding or conflicts of interest for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, 13-130 Clinical Sciences Building, Edmonton, T6G 2G3, Canada

    Arto Ohinmaa &  David Hailey (Senior Advisor)

  2. Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Arto Ohinmaa &  David Hailey (Senior Advisor)

Authors
  1. Arto Ohinmaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Hailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arto Ohinmaa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ohinmaa, A., Hailey, D. Telemedicine, Outcomes and Policy Decisions. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 10, 269–276 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200210050-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200210050-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation