Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33687335›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

eHealth Applications to Support Independent Living of Older Persons: Scoping Review of Costs and Benefits Identified in Economic Evaluations.

Sandra Sülz, Hilco J van Elten, Marjan Askari, Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen, Robbert Huijsman

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. eHealth Platforms to Promote Autonomous Life and Active Aging: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sandra SülzErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2354-1307
Hilco J van EltenErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3909-5521
Marjan AskariErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7473-0132
Anne Marie Weggelaar-JansenErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7786-6326
Robbert HuijsmanErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9776-129X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundeHealth applications are constantly increasing and are frequently considered to constitute a promising strategy for cost containment in health care, particularly if the applications aim to support older persons. Older persons are, however, not the only major eHealth stakeholder. eHealth suppliers, caregivers, funding bodies, and health authorities are also likely to attribute value to eHealth applications, but they can differ in their value attribution because they are affected differently by eHealth costs and benefits. Therefore, any assessment of the value of eHealth applications requires the consideration of multiple stakeholders in a holistic and integrated manner. Such a holistic and reliable value assessment requires a profound understanding of the application's costs and benefits. The first step in measuring costs and benefits is identifying the relevant costs and benefit categories that the eHealth application affects.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to support the conceptual phase of an economic evaluation by providing an overview of the relevant direct and indirect costs and benefits incorporated in economic evaluations so far.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search covering papers published until December 2019 by using the Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL EBSCOhost databases. We included papers on eHealth applications with web-based contact possibilities between clients and health care providers (mobile health apps) and applications for self-management, telehomecare, telemedicine, telemonitoring, telerehabilitation, and active healthy aging technologies for older persons. We included studies that focused on any type of economic evaluation, including costs and benefit measures.

resultsWe identified 55 papers with economic evaluations. These studies considered a range of different types of costs and benefits. Costs pertained to implementation activities and operational activities related to eHealth applications. Benefits (or consequences) could be categorized according to stakeholder groups, that is, older persons, caregivers, and health care providers. These benefits can further be divided into stakeholder-specific outcomes and resource usage. Some cost and benefit types have received more attention than others. For instance, patient outcomes have been predominantly captured via quality-of-life considerations and various types of physical health status indicators. From the perspective of resource usage, a strong emphasis has been placed on home care visits and hospital usage.

conclusionsEconomic evaluations of eHealth applications are gaining momentum, and studies have shown considerable variation regarding the costs and benefits that they include. We contribute to the body of literature by providing a detailed and up-to-date framework of cost and benefit categories that any interested stakeholder can use as a starting point to conduct an economic evaluation in the context of independent living of older persons.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesTelemedicineAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansIndependent Livingagedbenefitcosteconomic evaluationeHealth

Identifiers

PMID33687335
PMCPMC7988395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.