» Articles » PMID: 12065269

Systematic Review of Cost Effectiveness Studies of Telemedicine Interventions

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2002 Jun 18
PMID 12065269
Citations 111
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To systematically review cost benefit studies of telemedicine.

Design: Systematic review of English language, peer reviewed journal articles.

Data Sources: Searches of Medline, Embase, ISI citation indexes, and database of Telemedicine Information Exchange. STUDIES SELECTED: 55 of 612 identified articles that presented actual cost benefit data.

Main Outcome Measures: Scientific quality of reports assessed by use of an established instrument for adjudicating on the quality of economic analyses.

Results: 557 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.

Conclusion: There is no good evidence that telemedicine is a cost effective means of delivering health care.

Citing Articles

Methods for extrapolating costs and effects in economic evaluations of telehealth interventions: a scoping review protocol.

Raunbak S, Weinreich U, Johnsen S, Udsen F BMJ Open. 2025; 14(12):e087676.

PMID: 39806705 PMC: 11664371. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087676.


Exploring the determinants of online health service usage intentions under the threat of air pollution.

Xu X, Wang T, Liu C, Luo L, Liu X Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1447733.

PMID: 39416934 PMC: 11480077. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1447733.


Analyzing the barriers and enablers to internet hospital implementation: a qualitative study of a tertiary hospital using TDF and COM-B framework.

Wu X, Kuang Y, Guo Y, Wei N, Fan Z, Ling J Front Digit Health. 2024; 6:1362395.

PMID: 39175961 PMC: 11340510. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1362395.


Perceptions and utilization of tele-orthodontics: a survey of the members of the American Association of Orthodontists.

Arqub S, Al-Moghrabi D, Kuo C, Godoy L, Uribe F Prog Orthod. 2024; 25(1):16.

PMID: 38705914 PMC: 11070410. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-024-00516-4.


The efficiency of the EmERGE platform for medically stable people living with HIV in Portugal.

Beck E, Mandalia S, Yfantopoulos P, Jones C, Bremner S, Whetham J Porto Biomed J. 2023; 7(5):e191.

PMID: 37213918 PMC: 10194604. DOI: 10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000191.


References
1.
Wootton R . Telemedicine in the National Health Service. J R Soc Med. 2000; 91(12):614-21. PMC: 1296978. DOI: 10.1177/014107689809101202. View

2.
Currell R, Urquhart C, Wainwright P, Lewis R . Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; (2):CD002098. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002098. View

3.
Perednia D, Allen A . Telemedicine technology and clinical applications. JAMA. 1995; 273(6):483-8. View

4.
Haycox A, Walley T . Pharmacoeconomics: evaluating the evaluators. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997; 43(5):451-6. PMC: 2042774. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1997.00575.x. View