The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: A systematic review of the literature.
The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: A systematic review of the literature.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpubh.2022.787135
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Cascini, Fidelia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gentili, Andrea;Failla, Giovanna;Melnyk, Andriy;Puleo, Valeria;Tanna, Gian Luca Di;Ricciardi, Walter;Cascini, Fidelia
关键词：
数字健康干预在提高安全性、有效性和护理质量方面具有巨大潜力，减少了医疗成本的浪费。尽管有这些前提，但关于数字工具在卫生方面的成本和有效性的证据很少，而且有限。这项系统审查的目的是总结关于数字健康干预措施成本效益的证据，并评估研究是否符合既定的质量标准。我们在PubMed、Scope us和Web of Science数据库中查询了2016年1月1日至2020年12月31日发表的对数字医疗技术进行经济评估的英文文章。研究方法的严格性用综合卫生经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)进行评估。审查是根据2009年系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)检查表的首选报告项目进行的。检索确定了1,476个结果，其中552个结果被选作摘要，35个结果被纳入本综述。这些研究按国家(主要在高收入和中上收入国家进行)、电子健康干预类型、实施方法和报告视角是不同的。定性分析确定了六种不同类型干预措施的经济和效果评价：(1)17项关于新的视频监测服务系统的研究；(2)5项关于短信干预的研究；(3)5项关于网络平台和数字保健门户的研究；(4)2项关于电话支持的研究；(5)3项关于基于移动电话的新系统和应用的研究；以及(6)3项关于数字技术和创新的研究。关于数字干预成本效益的调查结果显示，越来越多的证据表明，就成本和健康结果而言，总体上是有利的效果。然而，由于研究方法的异质性，干预措施之间的比较仍然很困难。需要基于标准化方法的进一步研究，以便有条不紊地分析增量成本效益比、成本和健康收益。
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Iribarren SJ;Cato K;Falzon L;Stone PW
通讯作者：
Stone PW
影响因子：
4.9
作者：
O'Sullivan, Elizabeth J.;Rokicki, Slawa;McAuliffe, Fionnuala M.
通讯作者：
McAuliffe, Fionnuala M.
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Fusco, Francesco;Turchetti, Giuseppe
通讯作者：
Turchetti, Giuseppe
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
Cascini F;Santaroni F;Lanzetti R;Failla G;Gentili A;Ricciardi W
通讯作者：
Ricciardi W
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Lopez-Villegas, Antonio;Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel;Lopez-Liria, Remedios
通讯作者：
Lopez-Liria, Remedios