Cost-effectiveness of a novel e-health depression service

Cost-Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation Compared to Traditional In-Person Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person rehabilitation. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid databases identified 14 eligible studies. The analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, assessing economic outcomes using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Findings indicate that telerehabilitation was cost-effective in three out of 14 studies included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The mean ICER for telerehabilitation compared to traditional rehabilitation varied, with a probability of cost-effectiveness reaching 90% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,000 per QALY. However, at a WTP threshold of $0, the probability of cost-effectiveness remained low, suggesting that telerehabilitation does not always dominate in cost-effectiveness analyses. The study highlights the potential of telerehabilitation to provide similar or improved health outcomes compared to traditional rehabilitation while reducing travel costs and enhancing patient access. Increased patient satisfaction, reduced hospital readmissions, and improved adherence to rehabilitation protocols contributed to the economic benefits observed. However, methodological heterogeneity across studies remains a limitation. Given the growing adoption of digital health technologies, telerehabilitation presents a viable and economically efficient alternative to in-person rehabilitation. Policymakers should consider integrating telerehabilitation into routine healthcare services, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to optimize cost-effectiveness and enhance accessibility. Further research should focus on standardizing cost-effectiveness evaluation methods to strengthen evidence for large-scale implementation.

Digital interventions in mental health: evidence syntheses and economic modelling

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations provide evidence on whether or not digital interventions offer value for money, based on their costs and outcomes relative to the costs and outcomes of alternatives.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Evaluate and summarise published economic studies about digital interventions across different technologies, therapies, comparators and mental health conditions; (2) synthesise clinical evidence about digital interventions for an exemplar mental health condition; (3) construct an economic model for the same exemplar mental health condition using the previously synthesised clinical evidence; and (4) consult with stakeholders about how they understand and assess the value of digital interventions.

METHODS

We completed four work packages: (1) a systematic review and quality assessment of economic studies about digital interventions; (2) a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; (3) an economic model and value-of-information analysis on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; and (4) a series of knowledge exchange face-to-face and digital seminars with stakeholders.

RESULTS

In work package 1, we reviewed 76 economic evaluations: 11 economic models and 65 within-trial analyses. Although the results of the studies are not directly comparable because they used different methods, the overall picture suggests that digital interventions are likely to be cost-effective, compared with no intervention and non-therapeutic controls, whereas the value of digital interventions compared with face-to-face therapy or printed manuals is unclear. In work package 2, we carried out two network meta-analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials of digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder with a total of 2350 participants. The results were used to inform our economic model, but when considered on their own they were inconclusive because of the very wide confidence intervals. In work package 3, our decision-analytic model found that digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder were associated with lower net monetary benefit than medication and face-to-face therapy, but greater net monetary benefit than non-therapeutic controls and no intervention. Value for money was driven by clinical outcomes rather than by intervention costs, and a value-of-information analysis suggested that uncertainty in the treatment effect had the greatest value (£12.9B). In work package 4, stakeholders identified several areas of benefits and costs of digital interventions that are important to them, including safety, sustainability and reducing waiting times. Four factors may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing patient choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'.

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial uncertainty around effect estimates of digital interventions compared with alternatives. This uncertainty was driven by the small number of studies informing most comparisons, the small samples in some of these studies and the studies' high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital interventions may offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or 'doing something non-therapeutic' (e.g. monitoring or having a general discussion), but their added value compared with medication, face-to-face therapy and printed manuals is uncertain. Clinical outcomes rather than intervention costs drive 'value for money'.

FUTURE WORK

There is a need to develop digital interventions that are more effective, rather than just cheaper, than their alternatives.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105837.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Understanding patients' views and willingness toward the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service in Asia

Telehealth is a growing field, its pertinence magnified by COVID-19 causing the accelerated digitalization of the world. Given the significant global demand to provide telehealth services, it is important to explore patient receptiveness toward this alternative service model, particularly from regions where it has yet to be implemented. We conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the views and willingness of patients toward the use of telehealth for cancer genetic counseling. A survey was completed by 160 patients of the National Cancer Centre Singapore, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The study found that 95.6% (n = 153/160) of participants did not have prior telehealth experience. Most participants were willing or neutral toward having genetic counseling by phone (n = 114/160, 71.3%) and video (n = 106/160, 66.3%). However, majority prefer in-person appointments for first (n = 127/160, 79.4%) and follow-up (n = 97/160, 60.6%) visits over telehealth. Majority agreed that a phone/video consultation would meet most of their needs but voiced concerns regarding privacy and sharing of information (n = 79/160, 49.4% for phone; n = 74/160, 46.3% for video) and whether their emotional needs could be met (n = 61/160, 38.1%). Participants' age, employment status, income, mode of transportation to the appointment, and whether special arrangements were made to attend the in-person appointment were associated with receptivity to telehealth genetic counseling (p ≤ .05 for all). This study adds diversity to existing literature and demonstrates that patients from Asia are generally willing and accepting of the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service. This will help meet increasing global demand of telehealth consultations in the post-pandemic new norm. Furthermore, it will also provide services for underserved populations and patients requiring urgent testing in a timely manner. Further studies are needed to explore the cost-effectiveness and fair billing methods, as well as willingness and acceptability of telehealth genetic counseling in post-COVID times.

Systematic Review and Critique of Methods for Economic Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Interventions

OBJECTIVES

Investment in digital interventions for mental health conditions is growing rapidly, offering the potential to elevate systems that are currently overstretched. Despite a growing literature on economic evaluation of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), including several systematic reviews, there is no conclusive evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness. This paper reviews the methodology used to determine their cost-effectiveness and assesses whether this meets the requirements for decision-making. In doing so we consider the challenges specific to the economic evaluation of DMHIs, and identify where consensus and possible further research is warranted.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify all economic evaluations of DMHIs published between 1997 and December 2018. The searches included databases of published and unpublished research, reference lists and citations of all included studies, forward citations on all identified protocols and conference abstracts, and contacting authors researchers in the field. The identified studies were critiqued against a published set of requirements for decision-making in healthcare, identifying methodological challenges and areas where consensus is required.

RESULTS

The review identified 67 papers evaluating DMHIs. The majority of the evaluations were conducted alongside trials, failing to capture all relevant available evidence and comparators, and long-term impact of mental health disorders. The identified interventions are complex and heterogeneous. As a result, there are a number of challenges specific to their evaluation, including estimation of all costs and outcomes, conditional on analysis viewpoint, and identification of relevant comparators. A taxonomy for DMHIs may be required to inform what interventions can reasonably be pooled and compared.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first attempt to understand the appropriateness of the methodologies used to evaluate the value for money of DMHIs, helping work towards consensus and methods' harmonisation on these complex interventions.

Telemedicine efficiently improves access to hepatitis C management to achieve HCV elimination in the penitentiary setting

INTRODUCTION

Linkage to care for hepatitis C includes a new tool: teleconsultation. Micro-elimination in prison is a recommendation and is feasible. An economic evaluation of telemedicine for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment in prisons has not yet been performed. This study aimed to provide a cost-minimization analysis comparing two strategies of HCV treatment in a prison: telemedicine clinical practice (TCP) and the usual clinical practice (UCP).

METHODS

An observational cost-minimization study was carried out on a cohort of inmates who received anti-HCV treatment in El Dueso prison (May 2016-November 2017). A decision tree was constructed, incorporating different clinical profiles according to the severity of the disease, the results of diagnostic tests, and treatment outcomes as well as the costs of each profile. Satisfaction with telemedicine was evaluated through an 11-question questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Seventy-five inmates were treated and underwent TCP with a follow-up of one year. The average cost per patient with the TCP strategy was €1,172 (€1,151 direct costs). Had UCP been carried out, the cost would have been €1,687 (€1,630 direct). Telemedicine consultation practice produced savings of €516 (30.6%) per patient, with total savings of €38,677. The transfer costs from prison to hospital represented the most important saving item, accounting for 99.3% of the TCP-related savings. The questionnaire revealed high levels of satisfaction with TCP, with a median score of 5 in each question. Sustained virological response rates were 94.7% after the first treatment and 100% after retreatment of the four relapses.

CONCLUSION

Telemedicine consultation practice is a more efficient strategy than UCP, mainly due to the reduction of transfer costs while preserving effectiveness and user satisfaction.

Determining if Telehealth Can Reduce Health System Costs: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Telehealth represents an opportunity for Australia to harness the power of technology to redesign the way health care is delivered. The potential benefits of telehealth include increased accessibility to care, productivity gains for health providers and patients through reduced travel, potential for cost savings, and an opportunity to develop culturally appropriate services that are more sensitive to the needs of special populations. The uptake of telehealth has been hindered at times by clinician reluctance and policies that preclude metropolitan populations from accessing telehealth services.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate if telehealth reduces health system costs compared with traditional service models and to identify the scenarios in which cost savings can be realized.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to meet the study aims. Initially, literature searches were conducted using broad terms for telehealth and economics to identify economic evaluation literature in telehealth. The investigators then conducted an expert focus group to identify domains where telehealth could reduce health system costs, followed by targeted literature searches for corresponding evidence.

RESULTS

The cost analyses reviewed provided evidence that telehealth reduced costs when health system-funded travel was prevented and when telehealth mitigated the need for expensive procedural or specialist follow-up by providing competent care in a more efficient way. The expert focus group identified 4 areas of potential savings from telehealth: productivity gains, reductions in secondary care, alternate funding models, and telementoring. Telehealth demonstrated great potential for productivity gains arising from health system redesign; however, under the Australian activity-based funding, it is unlikely that these gains will result in cost savings. Secondary care use mitigation is an area of promise for telehealth; however, many studies have not demonstrated overall cost savings due to the cost of administering and monitoring telehealth systems. Alternate funding models from telehealth systems have the potential to save the health system money in situations where the consumers pay out of pocket to receive services. Telementoring has had minimal economic evaluation; however, in the long term it is likely to result in inadvertent cost savings through the upskilling of generalist and allied health clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Health services considering implementing telehealth should be motivated by benefits other than cost reduction. The available evidence has indicated that although telehealth provides overwhelmingly positive patient benefits and increases productivity for many services, current evidence suggests that it does not routinely reduce the cost of care delivery for the health system.

Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Depression: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of model-based studies that evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatments for depression are being published. These studies have different characteristics and use different simulation methods.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review model-based studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of treatments for depression and examine which modelling technique is most appropriate for simulating the natural course of depression.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, EMBASE and PsycInfo between 1 January 2002 and 1 October 2016. Studies were eligible if they used a health economic model with quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years as an outcome measure. Data related to various methodological characteristics were extracted from the included studies. The available modelling techniques were evaluated based on 11 predefined criteria.

RESULTS

This methodological review included 41 model-based studies, of which 21 used decision trees (DTs), 15 used cohort-based state-transition Markov models (CMMs), two used individual-based state-transition models (ISMs), and three used discrete-event simulation (DES) models. Just over half of the studies (54%) evaluated antidepressants compared with a control condition. The data sources, time horizons, cycle lengths, perspectives adopted and number of health states/events all varied widely between the included studies. DTs scored positively in four of the 11 criteria, CMMs in five, ISMs in six, and DES models in seven.

CONCLUSION

There were substantial methodological differences between the studies. Since the individual history of each patient is important for the prognosis of depression, DES and ISM simulation methods may be more appropriate than the others for a pragmatic representation of the course of depression. However, direct comparisons between the available modelling techniques are necessary to yield firm conclusions.

Telepsychiatry as an Economically Better Model for Reaching the Unreached: A Retrospective Report from South India

AIM

In a resource-poor country such as India, telepsychiatry could be an economical method to expand health-care services. This study was planned to compare the costing and feasibility of three different service delivery models. The end user was a state-funded long-stay Rehabilitation Center (RC) for the homeless.

METHODOLOGY

Model A comprised patients going to a tertiary care center for clinical care, Model B was community outreach service, and Model C comprised telepsychiatry services. The costing included expenses incurred by the health system to complete a single consultation for a patient on an outpatient basis. It specifically excluded the cost borne by the care-receiver. No patients were interviewed for the study.

RESULTS

The RC had 736 inmates, of which 341 had mental illness of very long duration. On comparing the costing, Model A costed 6047.5 INR (100$), Model B costed 577.1 INR (9.1$), and Model C costed 137.2 INR (2.2$). Model C was found fifty times more economical when compared to Model A and four times more economical when compared to Model B.

CONCLUSION

Telepsychiatry services connecting tertiary center and a primary health-care center have potential to be an economical model of service delivery compared to other traditional ones. This resource needs to be tapped in a better fashion to reach the unreached.

REVIEWING TRANSFERABILITY IN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ORIGINATING FROM EASTERN EUROPE

Objectives: The aim of this study is to analyze the quality and transferability issues reported in published peer-reviewed English-language economic evaluations based in healthcare settings of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) and former Soviet countries.

Methods: A systematic search of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions was performed for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. The included studies were assessed according to their characteristics, quality (using Drummond's checklist), use of local data, and the transferability of inputs and results, if addressed.

Results: Most of the thirty-four economic evaluations identified were conducted from a healthcare or payer perspective (74 percent), with 47 percent of studies focusing on infectious diseases. The least frequently and transparently addressed parameters were the items’ stated perspectives, relevant costs included, accurately measured costs in appropriate units, outcomes and costs credibly valued, and uncertainties addressed. Local data were often used to assess unit costs, baseline risk, and resource usage, while jurisdiction-specific utilities were included in only one study. Only 32 percent of relevant studies discussed the limitations of using foreign data, and 36 percent of studies discussed the transferability of their own study results to other jurisdictions.

Conclusions: Transferability of the results is not sufficiently discussed in published economic evaluations. To simplify the transferability of studies to other jurisdictions, the following should be comprehensively addressed: uncertainty, impact of influential parameters, and data transferability. The transparency of reporting should be improved.

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness research works of telemedicine, electronic health (e-health), and mobile health (m-health) systems in the literature is presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Academic databases and systems such as PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched, using different combinations of terms such as "cost-utility" OR "cost utility" AND "telemedicine," "cost-effectiveness" OR "cost effectiveness" AND "mobile health," etc. In the articles searched, there were no limitations in the publication date.

RESULTS

The search identified 35 relevant works. Many of the articles were reviews of different studies. Seventy-nine percent concerned the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine systems in different specialties such as teleophthalmology, telecardiology, teledermatology, etc. More articles were found between 2000 and 2013. Cost-utility studies were done only for telemedicine systems.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies for e-health and m-health systems in the literature. Some cost-effectiveness studies demonstrate that telemedicine can reduce the costs, but not all. Among the main limitations of the economic evaluations of telemedicine systems are the lack of randomized control trials, small sample sizes, and the absence of quality data and appropriate measures.

Routine real-time cost-effectiveness monitoring of a web-based depression intervention: a risk-sharing proposal

Background

A new health care technology must be cost-effective in order to be adopted. If evidence regarding cost-effectiveness is uncertain, then the decision maker faces two choices: (1) adopt the technology and run the risk that it is less effective in actual practice, or (2) reject the technology and risk that potential health is forgone. A new depression eHealth service was found to be cost-effective in a previously published study. The results, however, were unreliable because it was based on a pilot clinical trial. A conservative decision maker would normally require stronger evidence for the intervention to be implemented.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate how to facilitate service implementation by shifting the burden of risk due to uncertainty to the service provider and ensure that the intervention remains cost-effective during routine use.

Methods

We propose a risk-sharing scheme, where the service cost depends on the actual effectiveness of the service in real-life setting. Routine efficacy data can be used as the input to the cost-effectiveness model, which employs a mapping function to translate a depression specific score into quality-adjusted life-years. The latter is the denominator in the cost-effectiveness ratio calculation, required by the health care decision maker. The output of the model is a “value graph”, showing intervention value as a function of its observed (future) efficacy, using the €30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold.

Results

We found that the eHealth service should improve the patient’s outcome by at least 11.9 points on the Beck Depression Inventory scale in order for the cost-effectiveness ratio to remain below the €30,000/QALY threshold. The value of a single point improvement was found to be between €200 and €700, depending on depression severity at treatment start. Value of the eHealth service, based on the current efficacy estimates, is €1900, which is significantly above its estimated cost (€200).

Conclusions

The eHealth depression service is particularly suited to routine monitoring, since data can be gathered through the Internet within the service communication channels. This enables real-time cost-effectiveness evaluation and allows a value-based price to be established. We propose a novel pricing scheme where the price is set to a point in the interval between cost and value, which provides an economic surplus to both the payer and the provider. Such a business model will assure that a portion of the surplus is retained by the payer and not completely appropriated by the private provider. If the eHealth service were to turn out less effective than originally anticipated, then the price would be lowered in order to achieve the cost-effectiveness threshold and this risk of financial loss would be borne by the provider.