Cited by 181Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

How to measure costs and benefits of ehealth interventions: An overview of methods and frameworks

Open access
Bergmo, Trine Strand·2015·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

Information on the costs and benefits of eHealth interventions is needed, not only to document value for money and to support decision making in the field, but also to form the basis for developing business models and to facilitate payment systems to support large-scale services. In the absence of solid evidence of its effects, key decision makers may doubt the effectiveness, which, in turn, limits investment in, and the long-term integration of, eHealth services. However, it is not realistic to conduct economic evaluations of all eHealth applications and services in all situations, so we need to be able to generalize from those we do conduct. This implies that we have to select the most appropriate methodology and data collection strategy in order to increase the transferability across evaluations. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of how to apply economic evaluation methodology in the eHealth field. It provides a brief overview of basic health economics principles and frameworks and discusses some methodological issues and challenges in conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of eHealth interventions. Issues regarding the identification, measurement, and valuation of costs and benefits are outlined. Furthermore, this work describes the established techniques of combining costs and benefits, presents the decision rules for identifying the preferred option, and outlines approaches to data collection strategies. Issues related to transferability and complexity are also discussed.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.4521

Cites

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?

  • Online-based psychological interventions are expected to contribute to the sustainability of healthcare systems, with advantages such as access to remote locations and reduced waitlists.

    “Online-based psychological interventions have been the focus of attention over the past years and are expected to contribute to the sustainability of healthcare systems, with a number of advantages (eg, access to remote locations, reduced waitlists”

    From Efficacy of Online-Based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Introduction says eHealth can improve access for patients in remote areas and has potential efficiency and cost benefits. The Conclusions and Future Work section describes a promise to address health-care problems, while cautioning that evidence about costs and sustainability is limited. Neither section establishes these benefits specifically for online psychological interventions or mentions reduced waitlists. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 67 · Cited by 181

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [42]Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013 2013 2015-11-03 London, UK National Institute for Health Care and Excellence (NICE) http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf 6cmBLRF5X 27905712

Authors
Bergmo, T. S.
Affiliations
University Hospital of North Norway (NO)
Corresponding author
Bergmo, Trine Strand
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2015-11-09
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
e254
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112797870
Cited by
181
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 11
FWCI
5.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
digital health interventions, economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, cost measurement, benefit valuation, decision rules, data collection strategies, value for money
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Data Collection, Decision Making, Humans, Telemedicine, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

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