Economic Evaluations of Remote Patient Monitoring for Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshia R. De Guzman ◽  
Centaine L. Snoswell ◽  
Monica L. Taylor ◽  
Leonard C. Gray ◽  
Liam J. Caffery
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Patient Monitoring ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Remote Patient Monitoring ◽  
Remote Patient

scholarly journals A flexible protocol for a systematic review of remote patient monitoring

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Elizabeth Muller ◽  
Rigmor C. Berg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Monitoring ◽  
Remote Patient Monitoring ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Primary Health Services ◽  
Remote Patient

Abstract Background: Norway is interested in implementing remote patient monitoring (RPM) within primary health services. This systematic review will first identify the types of RPM that are of interest to Norwegian health authorities, then synthesize the effects of RPM on clinical health and health service utilization outcomes among adults with chronic diseases. Methods: We will perform systematic literature searches in multiple databases, using RPM-related searches, such as telemedicine, telemonitoring, and eHealth. Based on what research exists, the review will be selected from a cascading menu of review types. Methodological quality will be assessed through appropriate checklists, while the quality of the evidence will be assessed through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Discussion: This flexible protocol specifies the production of different possible types of reviews of RPM. It is anticipated that the results of the review will inform the development of effective RPM programs to the most appropriate chronic disease groups.

scholarly journals Remote Patient Monitoring via Non-Invasive Digital Technologies: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashok Vegesna ◽  
Melody Tran ◽  
Michele Angelaccio ◽  
Steve Arcona
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Monitoring ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Remote Patient Monitoring ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Remote Patient

scholarly journals Assessment of remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems for patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahar Salehi ◽  
Alireza Olyaeemanesh ◽  
Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh ◽  
Ensieh Nasli-Esfahani ◽  
Hossein Riazi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Patient Monitoring ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Remote Patient Monitoring ◽  
Remote Patient

scholarly journals Factors influencing the effectiveness of remote patient monitoring interventions: a realist review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e051844
Author(s):  
Emma E Thomas ◽  
Monica L Taylor ◽  
Annie Banbury ◽  
Centaine L Snoswell ◽  
Helen M Haydon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Patient Monitoring ◽  
Realist Review ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Remote Patient Monitoring ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
Remote Patient ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesOur recent systematic review determined that remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions can reduce acute care use. However, effectiveness varied within and between populations. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers require more than evidence of effect; they need guidance on how best to design and implement RPM interventions. Therefore, this study aimed to explore these results further to (1) identify factors of RPM interventions that relate to increased and decreased acute care use and (2) develop recommendations for future RPM interventions.DesignRealist review—a qualitative systematic review method which aims to identify and explain why intervention results vary in different situations. We analysed secondarily 91 studies included in our previous systematic review that reported on RPM interventions and the impact on acute care use. Online databases PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in October 2020. Included studies were published in English during 2015–2020 and used RPM to monitor an individual’s biometric data (eg, heart rate, blood pressure) from a distance.Primary and secondary outcome measuresContextual factors and potential mechanisms that led to variation in acute care use (hospitalisations, length of stay or emergency department presentations).ResultsAcross a range of RPM interventions 31 factors emerged that impact the effectiveness of RPM innovations on acute care use. These were synthesised into six theories of intervention success: (1) targeting populations at high risk; (2) accurately detecting a decline in health; (3) providing responsive and timely care; (4) personalising care; (5) enhancing self-management, and (6) ensuring collaborative and coordinated care.ConclusionWhile RPM interventions are complex, if they are designed with patients, providers and the implementation setting in mind and incorporate the key variables identified within this review, it is more likely that they will be effective at reducing acute hospital events.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020142523.

Remote Patient Monitoring: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 576-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederico Arriaga Criscuoli de Farias ◽  
Carolina Matté Dagostini ◽  
Yan de Assunção Bicca ◽  
Vincenzo Fin Falavigna ◽  
Asdrubal Falavigna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Monitoring ◽  
Remote Patient Monitoring ◽  
Remote Patient

Determining the cost of implementing and operating a remote patient monitoring programme for the elderly with chronic conditions: A systematic review of economic evaluations

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Peretz ◽  
Antonia Arnaert ◽  
Norma N Ponzoni
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Patient Monitoring ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Remote Patient Monitoring ◽  
Cost Category ◽  
Intervention Cost ◽  
Remote Patient ◽  
The Cost

Introduction Remote patient monitoring (RPM) in conjunction with home nursing visits is becoming increasingly popular for the follow-up of patients with chronic conditions and evidence exists that it improves patients’ health outcomes. Current cost data is reported inconsistently and often gathered from studies of poor methodological quality, making it difficult for decision-makers who consider implementing this service in their organizations. This study reviewed the cost of RPM programmes targeting elderly patients with chronic conditions. Methods After evaluation against the inclusion and exclusion criteria and appraisal against two criteria which are important for economic evaluations, data from selected studies were extracted and grouped into meaningful cost categories, then adjusted to reflect November 2015 US dollars. Results In the 13 selected studies, the newly-created cost category ‘Combined intervention cost’ (reflecting equipment purchasing, servicing and monitoring cost) for the various RPM programmes ranged from US$275–US$7963 per patient per year. The three main findings are: (a) RPM programme costs have decreased since 2004 due to cheaper technology; (b) monitoring a single vital sign is likely to be less costly than monitoring multiple vital signs; and (c) programmes targeting hypertension or congestive heart failure are less costly than those targeting respiratory diseases or multiple conditions. Conclusions This review recommends that future studies present their cost data with more granularity, that grouping of costs should be minimized and that any assumptions, such as amortization, should be made explicit. In addition, studies should compare programmes with similar characteristics in terms of type of conditions, number of vital signs monitored, etc. for more generalizable results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document