Cited by 495Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review

Open access
de la Torre-Díez, Isabel, López-Coronado, Miguel, Vaca, Cesar, Aguado, Jesús Saez, de Castro, Carlos·2015·Telemedicine and e-Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness research works of telemedicine, electronic health (e-health), and mobile health (m-health) systems in the literature is presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Academic databases and systems such as PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched, using different combinations of terms such as "cost-utility" OR "cost utility" AND "telemedicine," "cost-effectiveness" OR "cost effectiveness" AND "mobile health," etc. In the articles searched, there were no limitations in the publication date. RESULTS: The search identified 35 relevant works. Many of the articles were reviews of different studies. Seventy-nine percent concerned the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine systems in different specialties such as teleophthalmology, telecardiology, teledermatology, etc. More articles were found between 2000 and 2013. Cost-utility studies were done only for telemedicine systems. CONCLUSIONS: There are few cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies for e-health and m-health systems in the literature. Some cost-effectiveness studies demonstrate that telemedicine can reduce the costs, but not all. Among the main limitations of the economic evaluations of telemedicine systems are the lack of randomized control trials, small sample sizes, and the absence of quality data and appropriate measures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2014.0053

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • One review concluded that remote monitoring and video consultations could potentially be cost-effective from a provider perspective, but insufficient high-quality evidence precluded a more certain conclusion.

    “The second review concluded that remote monitoring and video consultations could potentially be cost-effective from a provider perspective, however insufficient high-quality evidence precluded a more certain conclusion [68].”

    From Telemedicine in the OECD: An umbrella review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, patient experience and implementation (2020) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Discussion and Conclusions (page unavailable) says most studies found telemedicine cost-effective, but identifies limitations in the quality of economic evaluations and reports that earlier reviews found no conclusive evidence. It does not make the narrower conclusion about remote monitoring and video consultations from a provider perspective. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Relevant information uploaded in real-time via digital technology potentially reduces time and economic costs for both patients and healthcare workers.

    “Relevant information is uploaded in real-time via digital technology, potentially reducing time and economic costs for both patients and healthcare workers (34).”

    From The effectiveness of digital health intervention on glycemic control and physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The introduction (page not specified in our copy) says that most cost-effectiveness studies demonstrate telemedicine can reduce costs, and the Results describe a telemedicine service that cost less than face-to-face delivery. The paper does not establish that real-time uploading of information reduces time or that the economic savings accrue to both patients and healthcare workers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is a large gap in the literature analysing the costs and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions addressing T2DM.

    “Nevertheless, there is a large gap in the literature analysing the costs and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions addressing T2DM [20].”
  • Few studies effectively analyzed the economic validity of tele-dermatology, and more randomized control trials with larger sample sizes and appropriate tools of measurement must be completed before accurate conclusions can be made.

    “de la Torre-Diez et al. found that few studies effectively analyzed the economic validity of tele-dermatology. They concluded that a need for more randomized control trials with larger sample sizes and appropriate tools of measurement must be completed before accurate conclusions can be made.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Heinen-Kammerer T, Motzkat K, Rychlik R. Telemedicine in secondary prevention of myocardial infarction-A cost-effectiveness-analysis. Gesundheitsokonomie Qualitatsmanagement 2005;10:289-294.
  2. Janssen H, Becker R, Zucca F, Wendisch T, Pethig K. Long term cost- effectiveness analysis of a telemedicine programme for patients with chronic heart failure. Conf ESC 2010;31:226.
  3. Yang NH, Marcin JP, Yoo B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of a pediatric critical care telemedicine program [abstract in Western Regional Meeting Abstracts]. J Investig Med 2013;61:198-199.
  4. Haycox AR, Mair FS. Systematic review of cost effectiveness in telemedicine- Quality of cost effectiveness studies in systematic reviews is problematic- Reply. BMJ 2002;325:598.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de la Torre-Díez, I., López-Coronado, M., Vaca, C., Aguado, J. S., & de Castro, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Valladolid
  • Universidad de Valladolid (ES)
  • University of Cordoba
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Published
2015-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
81-85
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
OpenAlex
W2335342262
Cited by
495
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • European Commission (AAL-20125036)
  • Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo (AAL-20125036)
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
telemedicine, e-health, mobile health, cost-utility analysis, cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, teleophthalmology, telecardiology, teledermatology
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Telemedicine, Electronic Health Records

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