Dataset Information

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized.

Methods

Seven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of costs and consequences of interventions (one categorized as a primary mHealth intervention or mHealth intervention as a component of other interventions), health and economic outcomes and published in English. Full economic evaluations were appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and The PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results

Searches identified 5902 results, of which 318 were examined at full text, and 39 were included in this review. The 39 studies spanned 19 countries, most of which were conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries (34, 87.2%). Primary mHealth interventions (35, 89.7%), behavior change communication type interventions (e.g., improve attendance rates, medication adherence) (27, 69.2%), and short messaging system (SMS) as the mHealth function (e.g., used to send reminders, information, provide support, conduct surveys or collect data) (22, 56.4%) were most frequent; the most frequent disease or condition focuses were outpatient clinic attendance, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 79.6% (range 47.62-100, STD 14.18) and the top quartile reported 91.3-100%. In 29 studies (74.3%), researchers reported that the mHealth intervention was cost-effective, economically beneficial, or cost saving at base case.

Conclusions

Findings highlight a growing body of economic evidence for mHealth interventions. Although all studies included a comparison of intervention effectiveness of a health-related outcome and reported economic data, many did not report all recommended economic outcome items and were lacking in comprehensive analysis. The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis. Further research is needed in low and low-middle income countries and to understand the impact of different mHealth types. Following established economic reporting guidelines will improve this body of research.

SUBMITTER: Iribarren SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5289471 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions.

Iribarren Sarah J SJ Cato Kenrick K Falzon Louise L Stone Patricia W PW

PloS one 20170202 2

<h4>Background</h4>Mobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized.<h4>Methods</h4>Seven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of cost ...[more]

PMID: 28152012

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionScaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions.Methods and analysisUsing the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR), a multidisciplinary program consisting of exercise, risk factor modification and psychosocial intervention, forms an integral part of managing patients after myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, as well as patients with heart failure (HF). This systematic review seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of CR for patients with MI or HF and inform policy makers in Singapore on published cost-effectiveness studies on CR.MethodsElectronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, PEDro, CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2010 for published economic studies. Additional references were identified through searching bibliographies of included studies. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using Drummond's checklist.ResultsA total of 22 articles were selected for review. However five articles were further excluded because they were cost-minimization analyses, whilst one included patients with stroke. Of the final 16 articles, one article addressed both centre-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation, as well as home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation. Therefore, nine studies compared cost-effectiveness between centre-based supervised CR and no CR; three studies examined that between centre- and home based CR; one between inpatient and outpatient CR; and four between home-based CR and no CR. These studies were characterized by differences in the study perspectives, economic study designs and time frames, as well as variability in clinical data and assumptions made on costs. Overall, the studies suggested that: (1) supervised centre-based CR was highly cost-effective and the dominant strategy when compared to no CR; (2) home-based CR was no different from centre-based CR; (3) no difference existed between inpatient and outpatient CR; and (4) home-based programs were generally cost-saving compared to no CR.ConclusionsOverall, all the studies supported the implementation of CR for MI and HF. However, comparison across studies highlighted wide variability of CR program design and delivery. Policy makers need to exercise caution when generalizing these findings to the Singapore context.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.Methods and findingsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.ConclusionsOur review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.

Project description:ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to identify, describe, classify and analyze the scientific health economic evidence of VL-related technologies.MethodsA web search of combinations of free text and Mesh terms related to the economic evaluation of visceral leishmaniasis was conducted on scientific publication databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Medline via the Pubmed and Lilacs). A manual search of references lists of articles previously identified by the authors was also included. Articles written in English, Portuguese, Spanish or French were considered suitable for inclusion. Articles that matched the inclusion criteria were screened by at least two researchers, who extracted information regarding the epidemiologic scenario and methodological issues on a standardized form.ResultsThe initial search retrieved 107 articles, whose abstracts were inspected according to the inclusion criteria leading to a first selection of 49 (46%) articles. After the elimination of duplicates, the list was reduced to 21 (20%) articles. After careful reading and application of exclusion criteria, 14 papers were eligible according to the description, classification and analysis process proposed by the study. When classified by type of economic evaluation, articles were 7 (50%) cost-effectiveness, 5 (36%) cost-minimization, 1(7%) cost-benefit, and 1(7%) budget impact. When classified by methodology, studies were mainly nested to clinical-trials ("piggy back") 8(57%). Discount rates for outcomes and costs were present in 3 (43%) of the cost-effectiveness studies, and according to WHO's recommendations, the discount rate of 3% was used in all studies.ConclusionsThis article showed that health economic evaluations on visceral leishmaniasis used a wide range of technologies and methods. Nevertheless it is important to point out the geographic concentration of studies, which makes their transferability uncertain to different epidemiological scenarios, especially those concerning visceral leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania infantum.

Project description:Background As a core component of harm-reduction strategies to address the opioid crisis, several countries have instituted publicly funded programs to distribute naloxone for lay administration in the community. The effectiveness in reducing mortality from opioid overdose has been demonstrated in multiple systematic reviews. However, the economic impact of community naloxone distribution programs is not fully understood. Objectives Our objective was to conduct a review of economic evaluations of community distribution of naloxone, assessing for quality and applicability to diverse contexts and settings. Data Sources The search strategy was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases. Study Eligibility Criteria and Interventions Search criteria were developed based on two themes: (1) papers involving naloxone or narcan and (2) any form of economic evaluation. A focused search of the grey literature was also conducted. Studies exploring the intervention of community distribution of naloxone were selected. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Data extraction was done using the British Medical Journal guidelines for economic submissions, assigning quality levels based on the impact of the missing or unclear components on the strength of the conclusions. Results A total of nine articles matched our inclusion criteria: one cost-effectiveness analysis, eight cost-utility analyses, and one cost-benefit analysis. Overall, the quality of the studies was good (six of high quality, two of moderate quality, and one of low quality). All studies concluded that community distribution of naloxone was cost effective, with an incremental cost-utility ratio range of $US111–58,738 (year 2020 values) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Limitations Our search strategy was developed iteratively, rather than following an a priori design. Additionally, our search was limited to English terms. Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings Based on this review, community distribution of naloxone is a worthwhile investment and should be considered by other countries dealing with the opioid epidemic. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00309-z.

Dataset Information

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets