Cost effectiveness review of text messaging, smartphone application, and website interventions targeting T2DM or hypertension
-
Published:2023-08-18
Issue:1
Volume:6
Page:
-
ISSN:2398-6352
-
Container-title:npj Digital Medicine
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:npj Digit. Med.
Author:
Willems RubenORCID, Annemans Lieven, Siopis GeorgeORCID, Moschonis George, Vedanthan Rajesh, Jung JennyORCID, Kwasnicka Dominika, Oldenburg Brian, d’Antonio Claudia, Girolami Sandro, Agapidaki Eirini, Manios YannisORCID, Verhaeghe NickORCID, Usheva Natalya, Iotova Violeta, Triantafyllidis Andreas, Votis Konstantinos, Toti Florian, Makrilakis Konstantinos, Seghieri Chiara, Moreno Luis, Dupont Sabine, Lewis Leo, Djokic Djordje, Skouteris Helen,
Abstract
AbstractDigital health interventions have been shown to be clinically-effective for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension prevention and treatment. This study synthesizes and compares the cost-effectiveness of text-messaging, smartphone application, and websites by searching CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, Medline and PsycInfo for full economic or cost-minimisation studies of digital health interventions in adults with or at risk of T2DM and/or hypertension. Costs and health effects are synthesised narratively. Study quality appraisal using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list results in recommendations for future health economic evaluations of digital health interventions. Of 3056 records identified, 14 studies are included (7 studies applied text-messaging, 4 employed smartphone applications, and 5 used websites). Ten studies are cost-utility analyses: incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) vary from dominant to €75,233/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with a median of €3840/QALY (interquartile range €16,179). One study finds no QALY difference. None of the three digital health intervention modes is associated with substantially better cost-effectiveness. Interventions are consistently cost-effective in populations with (pre)T2DM but not in populations with hypertension. Mean quality score is 63.0% (standard deviation 13.7%). Substandard application of time horizon, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis next to transparency concerns (regarding competing alternatives, perspective, and costing) downgrades quality of evidence. In conclusion, smartphone application, text-messaging, and website-based interventions are cost-effective without substantial differences between the different delivery modes. Future health economic studies should increase transparency, conduct sufficient sensitivity analyses, and appraise the ICUR more critically in light of a reasoned willingness-to-pay threshold.Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021247845).
Funder
EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council NYU Grossman School of Medicine DigiCare4You funding subaward
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Information Management,Health Informatics,Computer Science Applications,Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference62 articles.
1. IDF. IDF Atlas 10th edn (International Diabetes Federation, 2021). 2. Morris, D. H. et al. Progression rates from HbA1c 6.0-6.4% and other prediabetes definitions to type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetologia 56, 1489–1493 (2013). 3. Sowers, J. R., Epstein, M. & Frohlich, E. D. Diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease: an update. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 37, 1053–1059 (2001). 4. Mills, K. T., Stefanescu, A. & He, J. The global epidemiology of hypertension. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 16, 223–237 (2020). 5. Egan, B. M. & Stevens-Fabry, S. Prehypertension–prevalence, health risks, and management strategies. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 12, 289–300 (2015).
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|