Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 167–176 | Cite as

A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Home Monitoring in Chronic Disease Management

  • Kristian Kidholm
  • Mie Borch Dahl Kristensen
Review Article


Many countries have considered telemedicine and home monitoring of patients as a solution to the demographic challenges that health-care systems face. However, reviews of economic evaluations of telemedicine have identified methodological problems in many studies as they do not comply with guidelines. The aim of this study was to examine economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials of home monitoring in chronic disease management and hereby to explore the resources included in the programme costs, the types of health-care utilisation that change as a result of home monitoring and discuss the value of economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials of home monitoring on the basis of the studies identified. A scoping review of economic evaluations of home monitoring of patients with chronic disease based on randomised controlled trials and including information on the programme costs and the costs of equipment was carried out based on a Medline (PubMed) search. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies include both costs of equipment and use of staff, but there is large variation in the types of equipment and types of tasks for the staff included in the costs. Equipment costs constituted 16–73% of the total programme costs. In six of the nine studies, home monitoring resulted in a reduction in primary care or emergency contacts. However, in total, home monitoring resulted in increased average costs per patient in six studies and reduced costs in three of the nine studies. The review is limited by the small number of studies found and the restriction to randomised controlled trials, which can be problematic in this area due to lack of blinding of patients and healthcare professionals and the difficulty of implementing organisational changes in hospital departments for the limited period of a trial. Furthermore, our results may be based on assessments of older telemedicine interventions.



The authors thank Lise Kvistgaard Jensen and Claire Gudex, Odense University Hospital, for language editing of the manuscript and Christian Kronborg, COHERE, University of Southern Denmark for valuable comments on behalf of the Center for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital.

Author Contributions

KK contributed to development of the aim of the study, selection of the method for the review, literature search, assessment of the articles, charting of data, analysis and interpretation of data. MBDK contributed to development of the aim of the study, literature search, assessment of the articles, charting of data, analysis and interpretation of data.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors Kristian Kidholm and Mie Borch Dahl Kristensen declare that there is no conflict of interest.


The review was funded by the Research Council at Odense University Hospital.


  1. 1.
    Commission Communication. Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and societies. COM/2008/689 final. Accessed 01 Aug 2011.
  2. 2.
    Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández J, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f1035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AlDossary S, Martin-Khan MG, Bradford NK, Smith AC. A systematic review of the methodologies used to evaluate telemedicine service initiatives in hospital facilities. Int J Med Inform. 2017;97:171–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ. 2002;324(7351):1434–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergmo TS. Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2009;7(1):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mistry H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(1):1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mistry H, Hyeladzira G, Oppong R. Critical appraisal of published systematic reviews assessing the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies. Telemed e-Health. 2014;20(7):609–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Udsen FW, Hejlesen O, Ehlers LH. A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20:212–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grustam AS, Severens JL, Nijnatten J, Koymans R, Vrijhoef HJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients: a literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(01):59–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luzi D, Pecoraro F, Tamburis O. Economic evaluation of health IT. Page 165–180. In: Ammenwerth E, Rigby M, Eds. Evidence-based Health Informatics and the Scientific Development of the Field. Evidence-Based Health Informatics: Promoting Safety and Efficiency Through Scientific Methods and Ethical Policy (2016).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergmo TS. How to measure costs and benefits of ehealth interventions: an overview of methods and frameworks. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(11):e254. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4521.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levati S, Campbell P, Frost R, et al. Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:17. doi: 10.1186/s40814-016-0058-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management–an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:211–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Central Bank. Exchange rates. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernandex J-L, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;20(346):f103.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stoddart A, van der Pol M, Pinnock H, Hanley J, et al. Telemonitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cost and cost-utility analysis of a randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2015;21(2):108–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De San Miguel K, Smith J, Lewin G. Telehealth remote monitoring for community-dwelling older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Telemed e-Health. 2013;19(9):652–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jódar-Sánchez F, Ortega F, Parra C, et al. Cost-utility analysis of a telehealth programme for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treated with long-term oxygen therapy. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(6):307–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stoddart A, Hanley J, Wild S, et al. Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;3(5):e002681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Udsen FW, 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(5):e014616.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fasterholdt I, Gerstrøm M, Rasmussen BSB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring of diabetic foot ulcer patients. Health Inform J 2016;1460458216663026. doi: 10.1177/1460458216663026.
  25. 25.
    Ryan D, Price D, Musgrave SD, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of mobile phone supported self-monitoring of asthma: multicenter, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e1756.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cui Y, Doupe M, Katz A, Nyhof P, Forget EL. Economic evaluation of Manitoba Health Lines in the management of congestive heart failure. Healthc Policy. 2013;9(2):36–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, et al. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):843–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kidholm K, Jensen LK, Kjølhede T, Nielsen E, Horup MB. Validity of the model for assessment of telemedicine: a Delphi study. J Telemed Telecare. 2016;1:357633X16686553. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16686553.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu JLY, Wyatt JC. The case for randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:173–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Craig JA, Carr L, Hutton J, Glanville J, Iglesias CP, Sims AJ. A review of the economic tools for assessing new medical devices. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(1):15–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Madsen LB, Christiansen T, Kirkegaard P, Pedersen EB. Economic evaluation of home blood pressure telemonitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Blood Press. 2011;20(2):117–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haesum LK, Soerensen N, Dinesen B, et al. Cost-utility analysis of a tele-rehabilitation program: a case study of COPD patients. Telemed e-Health. 2012;18(9):688–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zanaboni P, Landolina M, Marzegalli M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study on remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):e106. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2587.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Calò L, Gargaro A, De Ruvo E, et al. Economic impact of remote monitoring on ordinary follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators as compared with conventional in-hospital visits. A single-center prospective and randomized study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2013;37(1):69–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Innovative Medical TechnologyOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  2. 2.MedComOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations