CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 444Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: A systematic review of the literature

Open access
Gentili, Andrea, Failla, Giovanna, Melnyk, Andriy, Puleo, Valeria, Tanna, Gian Luca Di, Ricciardi, Walter, Cascini, Fidelia·2022·Frontiers in Public Health
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2022.787135PMC PMC9403754
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Digital health interventions have significant potential to improve safety, efficacy, and quality of care, reducing waste in healthcare costs. Despite these premises, the evidence regarding cost and effectiveness of digital tools in health is scarce and limited. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions and to assess whether the studies meet the established quality criteria. Methods: We queried PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases for articles in English published from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020 that performed economic evaluations of digital health technologies. The methodological rigorousness of studies was assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2009 checklist. Results: Search identified 1,476 results, 552 of which were selected for abstract and 35 were included in this review. The studies were heterogeneous by country (mostly conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries), type of eHealth intervention, method of implementation, and reporting perspectives. The qualitative analysis identified the economic and effectiveness evaluation of six different types of interventions: (1) seventeen studies on new video-monitoring service systems; (2) five studies on text messaging interventions; (3) five studies on web platforms and digital health portals; (4) two studies on telephone support; (5) three studies on new mobile phone-based systems and applications; and (6) three studies on digital technologies and innovations. Conclusion: Findings on cost-effectiveness of digital interventions showed a growing body of evidence and suggested a generally favorable effect in terms of costs and health outcomes. However, due to the heterogeneity across study methods, the comparison between interventions still remains difficult. Further research based on a standardized approach is needed in order to methodically analyze incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, costs, and health benefits.

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 · 10.3389/fpubh.2022.787135

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Digital health interventions help break distance and time barriers, making them widely accessible and reduce medical costs.

    “Compared with conventional care, digital health interventions (DHIs) help break distance and time barriers, making it widely accessible and reduce medical costs (13)”

    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 [13]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says digital tools can improve access to care in rural areas, and the Conclusion (page unavailable) reports that more than half of the included studies found reduced healthcare-service costs. The review also describes telemedicine that avoids patient travel, supporting the distance-barrier point. It does not establish that DHIs generally remove time barriers or are widely accessible, and it cautions that evidence on cost-effectiveness remains limited. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Gentili et al indicated that several types of DHIs, such as videoconferencing systems, messaging, calls, mobile apps, and web-based platforms, help reduce health care costs.

    “They indicated that several types of DHIs, such as videoconferencing systems, messaging, calls, mobile apps, and web-based platforms, help reduce health care costs.”

    From Digital Health Interventions to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [101]

    The Discussion reports cost savings for studies of videoconferencing, text messaging, web platforms, and mobile applications. But the Telephone support section says calls produced similar or slightly higher costs, not savings; the Text messaging intervention section reports savings in only one of five studies. The claim overgeneralizes the cost-reduction finding to all the listed types. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • According to Gentili et al, there is convincing evidence of the cost-effectiveness of DHI in health care.

    “According to a systematic review of DHIs by Gentili et al [101], there is convincing evidence of the cost-effectiveness of DHI in health care.”

    From Digital Health Interventions to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [101]

    The Conclusion reports some evidence of favorable cost and health outcomes, but calls the overall evidence for cost-effectiveness in health care “scarce and limited.” It also says methodological heterogeneity makes comparisons difficult. “Convincing evidence” overstates the review’s conclusion. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. [2]Cascini F Santaroni F Lanzetti R Failla G Gentili A Ricciardi W. Developing a data-driven approach in order to improve the safety and quality of patient care. Front Public Health. (2021) 9: 667819. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.667819 34095071 PMC8175645 · DOI
  2. [3]Cascini F Hoxhaj I Zaçe D Ferranti M Di Pietro ML Boccia S. How health systems approached respiratory viral pandemics over time: a systematic review. BMJ Global Health. (2020). 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003677 33380411 PMC7780537 · DOI
  3. [6]De La Torre-Diéz I López-Coronado M Vaca C Aguado JS De Castro C. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. (2015) 21: 81– 5. 10.1089/tmj.2014.0053 25474190 PMC4312789 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [7]Clarke M Fursse J Brown-Connolly NE Sharma U Jones R. Evaluation of the National Health Service (NHS) direct pilot telehealth program: cost-effectiveness analysis. Telemed E Health. (2018) 24: 67– 76. 10.1089/tmj.2016.0280 28723244 · DOI
  5. [8]Krishnan A Finkelstein EA Levine E Foley P Askew S Steinberg D. A digital behavioral weight gain prevention intervention in primary care practice: cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Internet Res. (2019) 21: e12201. 10.2196/12201 31102373 PMC6543798 · DOI
  6. [9]Lugo VM Garmendia O Suarez-Girón M Torres M Vázquez-Polo FJ Negrín MA. Comprehensive management of obstructive sleep apnea by telemedicine: clinical improvement and cost-effectiveness of a virtual sleep unit. A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. (2019) 14: e0224069. 10.1371/journal.pone.0224069 31647838 PMC6812794 · DOI
  7. [10]Wan W Nathan AG Skandari MR Zarei P Reid MW Raymond JK. Cost-effectiveness of shared telemedicine appointments in young adults with T1D: CoYoT1 trial. Diabetes Care. (2019) 42: 1589– 92. 10.2337/dc19-0363 31189564 PMC6647044 · DOI
  8. [11]Islam M Peiffer R Chow CK Maddison R Lechner A Holle R Niessen L Laxy M. Cost-effectiveness of a mobile-phone text messaging intervention on type 2 diabetes—a randomized-controlled trial. Health Policy Technol. (2020) 9: 79– 85. 10.1016/j.hlpt.2019.12.003 · DOI
  9. [12]Oostingh EC Ophuis RH Koster WPH Polinder S Lingsma HF Laven JSE. Mobile health coaching on nutrition and lifestyle behaviors for subfertile couples using the smarter pregnancy program: model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. (2019) 7: e13935. 10.2196/preprints.13935 31647476 PMC6913721 · DOI
  10. [13]Song M Kanaoka H. Effectiveness of mobile application for menstrual management of working women in Japan: randomized controlled trial and medical economic evaluation. J Med Econ. (2018) 21: 1131– 8. 10.1080/13696998.2018.1515082 30130990 · DOI
  11. [14]Lowry KP Trentham-Dietz A Schechter CB Alagoz O Barlow WE Burnside ES. Long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2020) 112: 582– 9. 10.1093/jnci/djz184 31503283 PMC7301096 · DOI
  12. [15]Bahrainwala L Knoblauch AM Andriamiadanarivo A Diab MM McKinney J Small PM. Drones and digital adherence monitoring for community-based tuberculosis control in remote Madagascar: a cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS ONE. (2020) 15: e0235572. 10.1371/journal.pone.0235572 32634140 PMC7340291 · DOI
  13. [16]Thakar S Rajagopal N Mani S Shyam M Aryan S Rao AS. Comparison of telemedicine with in-person care for follow-up after elective neurosurgery: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of 1200 patients using patient-perceived utility scores. Neurosurg Focus. (2018) 44: E17. 10.3171/2018.2.FOCUS17543 29712532 · DOI
  14. [17]Whetten J van der Goes DN Tran H Moffett M Semper C Yonas H. Cost-effectiveness of Access to Critical Cerebral Emergency Support Services (ACCESS): a neuro-emergent telemedicine consultation program. J Med Econ. (2018) 21: 398– 405. 10.1080/13696998.2018.1426591 29316820 · DOI
  15. [18]Nguyen H V Tan GSW Tapp RJ Mital S Ting DSW Wong HT. Cost-effectiveness of a National Telemedicine Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program in Singapore. Ophthalmology. (2016) 123: 2571– 80. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.08.021 27726962 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [19]Vestergaard AS Hansen L Sorensen SS Jensen MB Ehlers LH. Is telehealthcare for heart failure patients cost-effective? An economic evaluation alongside the Danish TeleCare North heart failure trial. BMJ Open. (2020) 10: e031670. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031670 31992604 PMC7045102 · DOI
  17. [20]Oksman E Linna M Hörhammer I Lammintakanen J Talja M. Cost-effectiveness analysis for a tele-based health coaching program for chronic disease in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. (2017) 17: 138. 10.1186/s12913-017-2088-4 28202032 PMC5312514 · DOI
  18. [21]Levy DE Klinger E V Linder JA Fleegler EW Rigotti NA Park ER. Cost-effectiveness of a health system-based smoking cessation program. Nicotine Tob Res. (2017) 19: 1508– 15. 10.1093/ntr/ntw243 27639095 PMC5896510 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [22]Kumar S Bell MJ Juusola JL. Mobile and traditional cognitive behavioral therapy programs for generalized anxiety disorder: a cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS ONE. (2018) 13: e0190554. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190554 29300754 PMC5754075 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [23]Jo Y LeFevre AE Healy K Singh N Alland K Mehra S. Costs and cost-effectiveness analyses of mCARE strategies for promoting care seeking of maternal and newborn health services in rural Bangladesh. PLoS ONE. (2019) 14: e0223004. 10.1371/journal.pone.0223004 31574133 PMC6773420 · DOI
  21. [24]Cleghorn C Wilson N Nair N Kvizhinadze G Nghiem N McLeod M. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness from promoting smartphone apps for weight loss: multistate life table modeling. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. (2019) 7: e11118. 10.2196/11118 30664471 PMC6350086 · DOI
  22. [25]Prinja S Bahuguna P Gupta A Nimesh R Gupta M Thakur JS. Cost effectiveness of mHealth intervention by community health workers for reducing maternal and newborn mortality in rural Uttar Pradesh, India. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. (2018) 16: 25. 10.1186/s12962-018-0110-2 29983645 PMC6020234 · DOI
  23. [26]O'Sullivan EJ Rokicki S Kennelly M Ainscough K McAuliffe FM O'Sullivan EJ. Cost-effectiveness of a mobile health-supported lifestyle intervention for pregnant women with an elevated body mass index. Int J Obes. (2020) 44: 999– 1010. 10.1038/s41366-020-0531-9 31965073 · DOI
  24. [27]Nordyke RJ Appelbaum K Berman MA. Estimating the impact of novel digital therapeutics in type 2 diabetes and hypertension: health economic analysis. J Med Internet Res. (2019) 21: e15814. 10.2196/preprints.15814 31599740 PMC6914106 · DOI
  25. [28]Painter JT Fortney JC Austen MA Pyne JM. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine-based collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatr Serv. (2017) 68: 1157– 63. 10.1176/appi.ps.201600485 28669290 · DOI
  26. [29]de Jong MJ Boonen A van der Meulen-de Jong AE Romberg-Camps MJ van Bodegraven AA Mahmmod N. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine-directed specialized vs standard care for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases in a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2020) 18: 1744– 52. 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.038 32335133 · DOI
  27. [30]Hoyo JD Nos P Bastida G Faubel R Muñoz D Garrido-Marín A. Telemonitoring of Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative colitis (TECCU): cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Internet Res. (2019) 21: e15505. 10.2196/15505 31538948 PMC6754696 · DOI
  28. [31]Fusco F Turchetti G. Telerehabilitation after total knee replacement in Italy: cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a mixed telerehabilitation-standard rehabilitation programme compared with usual care. BMJ Open. (2016) 6: e009964. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009964 27188803 PMC4874124 · DOI
  29. [32]Watson HJ McLagan N Zerwas SC Crosby RD Levine MD Runfola CD. Cost-effectiveness of internet-based cognitive-behavioral treatment for bulimia nervosa: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry. (2018) 79: 16m11314. 10.4088/JCP.16m11314 29228517 PMC5837958 · DOI
  30. [33]Yoo B-K Kim M Sasaki T Melnikow J Marcin JP. Economic evaluation of telemedicine for patients in ICUs. Crit Care Med. (2016) 44: 265– 74. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001426 26540398 · DOI
  31. [34]Witt Udsen F Lilholt PH Hejlesen O Ehlers L. Cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the Danish ‘TeleCare North' cluster-randomised trial. BMJ Open. (2017) 7: e014616. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014616 28515193 PMC5541337 · DOI
  32. [36]Wang T-T Li J-M Zhu C-R Hong Z An D-M Yang H-Y. Assessment of utilization and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine program in western regions of China: a 12-year study of 249 hospitals across 112 cities. Telemed E Health. (2016) 22: 909– 20. 10.1089/tmj.2015.0213 27314300 · DOI
  33. [37]Lopez-Villegas A Catalan-Matamoros D Peiro S Lappegard KT Lopez-Liria R. Cost–utility analysis of telemonitoring versus conventional hospital-based follow-up of patients with pacemakers. The NORDLAND randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE. (2020) 15: e0226188. 10.1371/journal.pone.0226188 31995558 PMC6988929 · DOI
  34. [38]Sjostrom M Lindholm L Samuelsson E. Mobile app for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Internet Res. (2017) 19: e154. 10.2196/jmir.7383 28483745 PMC5440735 · DOI
  35. [39]Modi D Saha S Vaghela P Dave K Anand A Desai S. Costing and cost-effectiveness of a mobile health intervention (ImTeCHO) in improving infant mortality in tribal areas of Gujarat, India: cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. (2020) 8: e17066. 10.2196/17066 33052122 PMC7593859 · DOI
  36. [40]Sharifi M Franz C Horan CM Giles CM Long MW Ward ZJ. Cost-effectiveness of a clinical childhood obesity intervention. Pediatrics. (2017) 140: e20162998. 10.1542/peds.2016-2998 29089403 PMC5654390 · DOI
  37. [41]Buvik A Bergmo TS Bugge E Smaabrekke A Wilsgaard T Olsen JA. Cost-Effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. (2019) 21: e11330. 10.2196/11330 30777845 PMC6399572 · DOI
  38. [43]Bergmo TS. How to measure costs and benefits of ehealth interventions: An overview of methods and frameworks. J Med Internet Res. (2015) 11: e254. 10.2196/jmir.4521 26552360 PMC4642791 · DOI · Paper page
  39. [44]Jönsson B. Editorial: ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur J Health Econ. (2009) 10: 357– 9. 10.1007/s10198-009-0173-2 19618224 · DOI
  40. [45]McCabe C Claxton K Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. (2008) 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004 18767894 · DOI
  41. [46]Weinstein MC. How much are Americans willing to pay for a quality-adjusted life year? Med Care. (2008) 26: 733– 44. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31816a7144 18362811 · DOI
  42. [47]Taylor C Jan S. Economic evaluation of medicines. Aust Prescr. (2017) 40: 76– 8. 10.18773/austprescr.2017.014 28507401 PMC5407996 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gentili, A., Failla, G., Melnyk, A., Puleo, V., Tanna, G. L. D., Ricciardi, W., & Cascini, F.
Affiliations
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Gentili, Andrea
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Public Health
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-08-11
Volume
10
Pages
787135-787135
ISSN
2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpubh.2022.787135
PMC
PMC9403754
OpenAlex
W4291017016
Cited by
444
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 136 · 2025: 167 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 2
FWCI
14.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PubliCatt (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
digital health interventions, e-health, cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, video surveillance, text messaging intervention, mobile health apps, telephone support, health care costs
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Telephone, Telemedicine, Text Messaging

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