ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018
Prenatal Remote Monitoring of Women With Gestational Hypertensive Diseases: Cost Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- eHealth and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Prenatal and Postpartum Care in Women With Gestational Diabetes and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022Pooled it
- Remote and self-monitoring for pregnant women at risk of gestational hypertensive disorders: a cost-effectiveness analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring for Patients with Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Rapid Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Assessing signal loss, accuracy, and acceptability of an ambulatory fetal electrocardiography with cardiotocography in the antepartum and intrapartum phases.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Effects of a remote patient monitoring program on cost of care for neonates with inadequate oral feeding.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring in Pregnancies at Risk of Developing Preeclampsia.Current hypertension reports · 2025Review
- Exploring the Role of miRNA-101a in the Circulatory System's Adaptive Mechanisms in Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Detection and Control of Pregnancy Hypertension Using Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure With Automated Telemonitoring: Cost Analyses of the BUMP Randomized Trials.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2024Article
- Using self-monitoring to detect and manage raised blood pressure and pre-eclampsia during pregnancy: the BUMP research programme and its impact.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Review
- Postpartum remote home blood pressure monitoring: the new frontier.AJOG global reports · 2023Article
- A Novel, Cardiac-Derived Algorithm for Uterine Activity Monitoring in a Wearable Remote Device.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Long-Term IoT-Based Maternal Monitoring: System Design and Evaluation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Design of the Pregnancy REmote MOnitoring II study (PREMOM II): a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of remote monitoring for gestational hypertensive disorders.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Exploring perspectives, preferences and needs of a telemonitoring program for women at high risk for preeclampsia in a tertiary health facility of Karachi: a qualitative study protocol.Reproductive health · 2020Article
- Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: a Comparison of International Guidelines.Current hypertension reports · 2020Review
- Exploring the Use of Telemonitoring for Patients at High Risk for Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy in the Antepartum and Postpartum Periods: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Understanding the Adoption and Diffusion of a Telemonitoring Solution in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Qualitative Study.JMIR diabetes · 2019Article
- A Vendor-Independent Mobile Health Monitoring Platform for Digital Health Studies: Development and Usability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Relationship Between Adherence to Remote Monitoring and Patient Characteristics: Observational Study in Women With Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemote monitoring in obstetrics is relatively new; some studies have shown its effectiveness for both mother and child. However, few studies have evaluated the economic impact compared to conventional care, and no cost analysis of a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up program for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive diseases (GHD) has been published.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the costs of remote monitoring versus conventional care relative to reported benefits.
methodsPatient data from the Pregnancy Remote Monitoring (PREMOM) study were used. Health care costs were calculated from patient-specific hospital bills of Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (Genk, Belgium) in 2015. Cost comparison was made from three perspectives: the Belgian national health care system (HCS), the National Institution for Insurance of Disease and Disability (RIZIV), and costs for individual patients. The calculations were made for four major domains: prenatal follow-up, prenatal admission to the hospital, maternal and neonatal care at and after delivery, and total amount of costs. A simulation exercise was made in which it was calculated how much could be demanded of RIZIV for funding the remote monitoring service.
resultsA total of 140 pregnancies were included, of which 43 received remote monitoring (30.7%) and 97 received conventional care (69.2%). From the three perspectives, there were no differences in costs for prenatal follow-up. Compared to conventional care, remote monitoring patients had 34.51% less HCS and 41.72% less RIZIV costs for laboratory test results (HCS: mean €0.00 [SD €55.34] vs mean €38.28 [SD € 44.08], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €21.09 [SD €27.94] vs mean €36.19 [SD €41.36], P<.001) and a reduction of 47.16% in HCS and 48.19% in RIZIV costs for neonatal care (HCS: mean €989.66 [SD €3020.22] vs mean €1872.92 [SD €5058.31], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €872.97 [SD €2761.64] vs mean €1684.86 [SD €4702.20], P<.001). HCS costs for medication were 1.92% lower in remote monitoring than conventional care (mean €209.22 [SD €213.32] vs mean €231.32 [SD 67.09], P=.02), but were 0.69% higher for RIZIV (mean €122.60 [SD €92.02] vs mean €121.78 [SD €20.77], P<.001). Overall HCS costs for remote monitoring were mean €4233.31 (SD €3463.31) per person and mean €4973.69 (SD €5219.00) per person for conventional care (P=.82), a reduction of €740.38 (14.89%) per person, with savings mainly for RIZIV of €848.97 per person (23.18%; mean €2797.42 [SD €2905.18] vs mean €3646.39 [SD €4878.47], P=.19). When an additional fee of €525.07 per month per pregnant woman for funding remote monitoring costs is demanded, remote monitoring is acceptable in their costs for HCS, RIZIV, and individual patients.
conclusionsIn the current organization of Belgian health care, a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up of women with GHD is cost saving for the global health care system, mainly via savings for the insurance institution RIZIV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.