Cited by 56Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeTechnology Use by Older Adults

Determining the cost of implementing and operating a remote patient monitoring programme for the elderly with chronic conditions: A systematic review of economic evaluations

Peretz, Daniel, Arnaert, Antonia, Ponzoni, Norma N·2018·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

Introduction: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) in conjunction with home nursing visits is becoming increasingly popular for the follow-up of patients with chronic conditions and evidence exists that it improves patients’ health outcomes. Current cost data is reported inconsistently and often gathered from studies of poor methodological quality, making it difficult for decision-makers who consider implementing this service in their organizations. This study reviewed the cost of RPM programmes targeting elderly patients with chronic conditions. Methods: After evaluation against the inclusion and exclusion criteria and appraisal against two criteria which are important for economic evaluations, data from selected studies were extracted and grouped into meaningful cost categories, then adjusted to reflect November 2015 US dollars. Results: In the 13 selected studies, the newly-created cost category ‘Combined intervention cost’ (reflecting equipment purchasing, servicing and monitoring cost) for the various RPM programmes ranged from US$275–US$7963 per patient per year. The three main findings are: (a) RPM programme costs have decreased since 2004 due to cheaper technology; (b) monitoring a single vital sign is likely to be less costly than monitoring multiple vital signs; and (c) programmes targeting hypertension or congestive heart failure are less costly than those targeting respiratory diseases or multiple conditions. Conclusions: This review recommends that future studies present their cost data with more granularity, that grouping of costs should be minimized and that any assumptions, such as amortization, should be made explicit. In addition, studies should compare programmes with similar characteristics in terms of type of conditions, number of vital signs monitored, etc. for more generalizable results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1357633x16669239

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Peretz, D., Arnaert, A., & Ponzoni, N. N.
Affiliations
McGill University (CA)
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2016-09-19
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
13-21
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2522358683
Cited by
56
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
remote patient monitoring, cost analysis, elderly patients, chronic disease, home-visit nursing, vital signs monitoring, hypertension, congestive heart failure, respiratory diseases
MeSH terms
Aged, Chronic Disease, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Heart Failure, Humans, Hypertension, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Remote Sensing Technology

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