Cited by 526Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare cost, quality, practices

Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions

Open access
Whitten, Pamela S, Mair, Frances S, Haycox, Alan, May, Carl R, Williams, Tracy L, Hellmich, Seth·2002·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically review cost benefit studies of telemedicine. Design: Systematic review of English language, peer reviewed journal articles. Data sources: Searches of Medline, Embase, ISI citation indexes, and database of Telemedicine Information Exchange. Studies selected: 55 of 612 identified articles that presented actual cost benefit data. Main outcome measures: Scientific quality of reports assessed by use of an established instrument for adjudicating on the quality of economic analyses. Results: 557 articles without cost data categorised by topic. 55 articles with data initially categorised by cost variables employed in the study and conclusions. Only 24/55 (44%) studies met quality criteria justifying inclusion in a quality review. 20/24 (83%) restricted to simple cost comparisons. No study used cost utility analysis, the conventional means of establishing the “value for money” that a therapeutic intervention represents. Only 7/24 (29%) studies attempted to explore the level of utilisation that would be needed for telemedicine services to compare favourably with traditionally organised health care. None addressed this question in sufficient detail to adequately answer it. 15/24 (62.5%) of articles reviewed here provided no details of sensitivity analysis, a method all economic analyses should incorporate. Conclusion: There is no good evidence that telemedicine is a cost effective means of delivering health care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1434

Cites

1 of 1 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
Whitten, P. S., Mair, F. S., Haycox, A., May, C. R., Williams, T. L., & Hellmich, S.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Whitten, Pamela S
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-06-15
Volume
324
Issue
7351
Pages
1434-1437
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2066432419
Cited by
526
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 25
FWCI
6.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
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 › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Keywords
telemedicine, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis, cost-utility analysis, sensitivity analysis, health care utilization, value for money
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Services Research, Humans, Research, Sensitivity and Specificity, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Telemedicine

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