Economic Evaluations of Remote Patient Monitoring for Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia;2. Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia;1. Health Economics Resource Center, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA;2. Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA;3. Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA;4. Informatics, Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences Center, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;6. VA Office of Specialty Care Services, Durham, NC, USA;7. VA National TeleStroke Program and VA Office of Specialty Care Services, Washington, DC, USA;8. Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA;9. Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA;10. Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA;11. VA HSR&D EXTEND QUERI and the Center for Health Information and Communication, Indianapolis VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA;12. Department of Neurology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA;13. Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, IN, USA;1. Sanofi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;2. Erasmus School of health Policy & Management, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;1. Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Gelderland, The Netherlands;2. Ouva, San Francisco, CA, USA;3. Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, The Netherlands;1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Rutledge Ave, MSC 591, Charleston, SC, USA;2. Section of Health Systems Research and Policy, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Rutledge Ave, MSC 591, Charleston, SC, USA;1. Center for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;2. Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;3. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;4. Department of Nursing, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;5. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;6. Division of Health Care Delivery Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;7. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA;8. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | ![]()
ObjectivesThis study aimed to systematically review and summarize economic evaluations of noninvasive remote patient monitoring (RPM) for chronic diseases compared with usual care.MethodsA 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.ResultsThis 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.ConclusionsRPM 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | chronic disease economic remote monitoring telemonitoring |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
