Cited by 53Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeTechnology Use by Older Adults

The Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) Interventions for Older Adults: Systematic Review

Open access
Ghani, Zartashia, Jarl, Johan, Sanmartin Berglund, Johan, Andersson, Martin, Anderberg, Peter·2020·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract

The objective of this study was to critically assess and review empirical evidence on the cost-effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) interventions for older adults. We systematically searched databases such as Pubmed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Literature (CINAHL) for peer-reviewed economic evaluations published in English from 2007 to 2018. We extracted data on methods and empirical evidence (costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) and assessed if this evidence supported the reported findings in terms of cost-effectiveness. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies. Eleven studies were identified and categorized into two groups: complex smartphone communication and simple text-based communication. Substantial heterogeneity among the studies in terms of methodological approaches and types of intervention was observed. The cost-effectiveness of complex smartphone communication interventions cannot be judged due to lack of information. Limited evidence of cost-effectiveness was found for interventions related to simple text-based communications. Comprehensive economic evaluation studies are warranted to assess the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions designed for older adults.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph17155290

Cites

28 of 28 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?

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

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]WHO Global Observatory for eHealth mHealth: New Horizons for Health through Mobile Technologies WHO Press, World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland 2011 1 112
  2. [11]Drummond M.F. Sculpher M.J. Claxton K. Stoddart G.L. Torrance G.W. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 4th ed. Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2015 65 75

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghani, Z., Jarl, J., Sanmartin Berglund, J., Andersson, M., & Anderberg, P.
Affiliations
  • Blekinge Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Department of Health, Blekinge Institute of Technology, SE-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden
Corresponding author
Ghani, Zartashia
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-07-22
Volume
17
Issue
15
Pages
5290
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3044822023
Cited by
53
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • University Library of Skövde (University of Skövde) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme (643399)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • 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
mobile health, mobile health intervention, older adults, cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, smartphone communication, text messaging, health communication, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Databases, Factual, 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