Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions |
| |
| Authors: | Pamela S Whitten Frances S Mair Alan Haycox Carl R May Tracy L Williams Seth Hellmich |
| |
| Affiliation: | aDepartment of Telecommunications, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1212, USA, bDepartment of Primary Care, University of Liverpool, cDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, dCentre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, eSchool of Primary Care, University of Manchester |
| |
| Abstract: | ![]()
ObjectivesTo systematically review cost benefit studies of telemedicine.DesignSystematic review of English language, peer reviewed journal articles.Results557 articles without cost data categorised by topic. 55 articles with data initially categorised by cost variables employed in the study and conclusions. Only 24/55 (44%) studies met quality criteria justifying inclusion in a quality review. 20/24 (83%) restricted to simple cost comparisons. No study used cost utility analysis, the conventional means of establishing the “value for money” that a therapeutic intervention represents. Only 7/24 (29%) studies attempted to explore the level of utilisation that would be needed for telemedicine services to compare favourably with traditionally organised health care. None addressed this question in sufficient detail to adequately answer it. 15/24 (62.5%) of articles reviewed here provided no details of sensitivity analysis, a method all economic analyses should incorporate.ConclusionThere is no good evidence that telemedicine is a cost effective means of delivering health care. What is already known on this topicThe use of telemedicine has garnered much attention in the past decadeHundreds of articles have been published claiming that telemedicine is cost effectiveHowever, missing from the literature is a synthesis or meta-analysis of these publicationsWhat this study addsA comprehensive literature search of cost related articles on telemedicine identified more than 600 articles, but only 9% contained any cost benefit dataOnly 4% of these articles met quality criteria justifying inclusion in a formalised quality review, and most of these were small scale, short term, pragmatic evaluations with few generalisable conclusionsThere is little published evidence to confirm whether or not telemedicine is a cost effective alternative to standard healthcare delivery |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
