ReviewBMC health services research2023
Health economic evaluation of preventive digital public health interventions using decision-analytic modelling: a systematized review.
Review in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of testing biofluid biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of methodological approaches in economic evaluations of maternal and neonatal sepsis interventions in low- and middle-income countries.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Psychological distance intervention reminders reduce alcohol consumption frequency in daily life.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Does Digital Make a Difference? Willingness-to-Pay for Digital Versus Offline Weight Loss in Germany.Obesity science & practice · 2026Article
- Nivolumab-AVD versus Brentuximab Vedotin-AVD as First-Line Treatment for Advanced-Stage Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
- Charting Advances in Asset Management Systems: A Bibliometric Analysis Revealing Applications and Potential in Healthcare.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Methods, Indicators, and End-User Involvement in the Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions for the Public: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- [Developments in the digitalization of public health since 2020 : Examples from the Leibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health Bremen].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Review
- Enhancing infectious disease prediction model selection with multi-objective optimization: an empirical study.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital public health (DiPH) provides novel approaches for prevention, potentially leading to long-term health benefits in resource-limited health systems. However, cost-effectiveness of DiPH interventions is unclear. This systematized review investigates the use of decision-analytic modelling in health economic evaluations of DiPH primary prevention and health promotion interventions, focusing on intervention's design, methods used, results, and reporting quality.
methodsPubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies of decision-analytic economic evaluations of digital interventions in primary prevention or health promotion, published up to June 2022. Intervention characteristics and selected items were extracted based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were then extracted and price-adjusted to compare the economic evaluation results. Finally, the included studies' reporting quality was assessed by building a score using CHEERS.
resultsThe database search (including search update) produced 2,273 hits. After removing duplicates, 1,434 titles and abstracts were screened. Of the 89 studies meeting the full-text search criteria, 14 were ultimately reviewed. The most common targets were physical activity (five studies) and weight loss (four). Digital applications include text messages, web-based inventions, app-based interventions, e-learning devices, and the promotion of smartphone apps. The mean ICER of the 12 studies using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) is €20,955 per QALY (min. - €3,949; max. €114,211). The mean of reported CHEERS items per study is 81% (min. 59%; max. 91%).
conclusionsThis review only includes primary prevention and health promotion, and thus excludes other DiPH fields (e.g. secondary prevention). It also focuses on decision-analytic models, excluding study-based economic evaluations. Standard methods of economic evaluation could be adapted more to the specifics of DiPH by measuring the effectiveness of more current technologies through alternative methods, incorporating a societal perspective, and more clearly defining comparators. Nevertheless, the review demonstrates using common thresholds that the new field of DiPH shows potential for cost-effective preventive interventions.
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.