ArticleJMIR aging2022
An Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Tool for Older Adults With Complex Chronic Conditions: Cost-Utility Analysis.
Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02917954 (Full Evaluation, Scale and Spread), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Full Evaluation, Scale and Spread: Pragmatic Trial of the HSPRN-Bridgepoint Electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) Mobile Application to Support the Needs of Persons With Complex Chronic Disease and Disability
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electronic Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Patient-Centred Care for Multimorbid Patients: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Feasibility of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for a Population Receiving Specific Health Checkups: A Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Health economic evaluations of digital health technologies-a rapid review of applied methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Active remote monitoring of long-term conditions with mobile devices: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A Core Outcome Set for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Development and Recommendations for Implementation in Clinical Practice Through an International Multi-stakeholder Consensus Process.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2024Article
- Health scorecards and electronic patient reported outcome measures (e-PROMs): the sum of us?mHealth · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundeHealth technologies for self-management can improve quality of life, but little is known about whether the benefits gained outweigh their costs. The electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) mobile app and portal system supports patients with multiple chronic conditions to collaborate with primary health care providers to set and monitor health-related goals.
objectiveThis study aims to estimate the cost of ePRO and the cost utility of the ePRO intervention compared with usual care provided to patients with multiple chronic conditions and complex needs living in the community, from the perspective of the publicly funded health care payer in Ontario, Canada.
methodsWe developed a decision tree model to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for the ePRO tool versus usual care over a time horizon of 15 months. Resource utilization and effectiveness of the ePRO tool were drawn from a randomized clinical trial with 6 family health teams involving 45 participants. Unit costs associated with health care utilization (adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollars) were drawn from literature and publicly available sources. A series of sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.
resultsThe total cost of the ePRO tool was CAD $79,467 (~US $ 63,581; CAD $1733 [~US $1386] per person). Compared with standard care, the ePRO intervention was associated with higher costs (CAD $1710 [~US $1368]) and fewer QALYs (-0.03). The findings were consistent with the clinical evidence, suggesting no statistical difference in health-related quality of life between ePRO and usual care groups. However, the tool would be considered a cost-effective option if it could improve by at least 0.03 QALYs. The probability that the ePRO is cost-effective was 17.3% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD $50,000 (~US $40,000)/QALY.
conclusionsThe ePRO tool is not a cost-effective technology at the commonly used WTP value of CAD $50,000 (~US $40,000)/QALY, but long-term and the societal impacts of ePRO were not included in this analysis. Further research is needed to better understand its impact on long-term outcomes and in real-world settings. The present findings add to the growing evidence about eHealth interventions' capacity to respond to complex aging populations within finite-resourced health systems.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02917954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02917954.
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.