Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37395212›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2025

Economic Evaluations of mHealth Interventions for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review.

Ida Tornvall, Danelle Kenny, Befikadu Legesse Wubishet, Anthony Russell, Anish Menon, Tracy Comans

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Ida TornvallCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4193-6302
Danelle KennyCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Befikadu Legesse WubishetCentre for Economic Impacts of Genomic Medicine, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9896-8893
Anthony RussellCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Anish MenonCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Tracy ComansCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is plenty of evidence supporting the clinical benefits of mHealth interventions for type 2 diabetes, but despite often being promoted as cost-effective or cost-saving, there is still limited research to support such claims. The objective of this review was to summarize and critically analyze the current body of economic evaluation (EE) studies for mHealth interventions for type 2 diabetes.

methodsUsing a comprehensive search strategy, five databases were searched for full and partial EE studies for mHealth interventions for type 2 diabetes from January 2007 to March 2022. "mHealth" was defined as any intervention that used a mobile device with cellular technology to collect and/or provide data or information for the management of type 2 diabetes. The CHEERS 2022 checklist was used to appraise the reporting of the full EEs.

resultsTwelve studies were included in the review; nine full and three partial evaluations. Text messages smartphone applications were the most common mHealth features. The majority of interventions also included a Bluetooth-connected medical device, eg, glucose or blood pressure monitors. All studies reported their intervention to be cost-effective or cost-saving, however, most studies' reporting were of moderate quality with a median CHEERS score of 59%.

conclusionThe current literature indicates that mHealth interventions for type 2 diabetes can be cost-saving or cost-effective, however, the quality of the reporting can be substantially improved. Heterogeneity makes it difficult to compare study outcomes, and the failure to report on key items leaves insufficient information for decision-makers to consider.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2TelemedicineHumansMobile Applicationscost-effectivenessdigital healthhealth economicsmHealthtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID37395212
PMCPMC11688683

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.