Cited by 83Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Economic Evaluations of Remote Patient Monitoring for Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review

Open access
De Guzman, Keshia R., Snoswell, Centaine L., Taylor, Monica L., Gray, Leonard C., Caffery, Liam J.·2022·Value in Health

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jval.2021.12.001

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
De Guzman, K. R., Snoswell, C. L., Taylor, M. L., Gray, L. C., & Caffery, L. J.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
897-913
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4205153101
Cited by
83
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Notre Dame Australia
  • Macquarie University
  • Bupa Health Foundation
  • Department of Health, Australian Government
  • NSW Ministry of Health
  • NHMRC (9100002)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
remote patient monitoring, chronic disease, cost-effectiveness, hypertension, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, usual care comparison, healthcare system perspective
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Heart Failure, Humans, Hypertension, Monitoring, Physiologic, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review