Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38156340›Full record

ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2024

Bottom-Up Analysis of Telemonitoring Costs: A Case Study in Slovenian Primary Care.

Matic Mihevc, Črt Zavrnik, Majda Mori Lukančič, Tina Virtič Potočnik, Marija Petek Šter, Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš, Antonija Poplas Susič

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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

7 authors.

Matic MihevcCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Primary Healthcare Research and Development Institute, Metelkova ulica 9, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4041-8682
Črt ZavrnikCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Primary Healthcare Research and Development Institute, Metelkova ulica 9, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0654-452X
Majda Mori LukančičCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Primary Healthcare Research and Development Institute, Metelkova ulica 9, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8507-833X
Tina Virtič PotočnikCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Primary Healthcare Research and Development Institute, Metelkova ulica 9, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4925-3706
Marija Petek ŠterUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Poljanski nasip 58, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1736-2377
Zalika Klemenc-KetišCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Primary Healthcare Research and Development Institute, Metelkova ulica 9, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0270-1754
Antonija Poplas SusičCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Primary Healthcare Research and Development Institute, Metelkova ulica 9, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4328-3333

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Telemonitoring improves clinical outcomes in patients with arterial hypertension (AH) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), however, cost structure analyses are lacking. This study seeks to explore the cost structure of telemonitoring for the elderly with AH and T2D in primary care and identify factors influencing costs for potential future expansions. Methods: Infrastructure, operational, patient participation, and out-of-pocket costs were determined using a bottom-up approach. Infrastructure costs were determined by dividing equipment and telemonitoring platform expenses by the number of participants. Operational and patient participation costs were determined by considering patient training time, data measurement/review time, and teleconsultation time. The change in out-of-pocket costs was assessed in both groups using a structured questionnaire and 12-month expenditure data. Statistical analysis employed an unpaired sample t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-square test. Results: A total of 117 patients aged 71.4±4.7 years were included in the study. The telemonitoring intervention incurred an annual infrastructure costs of €489.4 and operational costs of €97.3 (95% CI 85.7-109.0) per patient. Patient annual participation costs were €215.6 (95% CI 190.9-241.1). Average annual out-of-pocket costs for both groups were €345 (95% CI 221-469). After 12 months the telemonitoring group reported significantly lower out-of-pocket costs (€132 vs. €545, p<0.001), driven by reduced spending on food, dietary supplements, medical equipment, and specialist check-ups compared to the standard care group. Conclusion: To optimise the cost structure of telemonitoring, strategies like shortening the telemonitoring period, developing a national telemonitoring platform, using patient devices, integrating artificial intelligence into platforms, and involving nurse practitioners as telemedicine centre coordinators should be explored.

Indexed as

CostsDiabetesElderlyHypertensionPrimary careTelemonitoring

Identifiers

PMID38156340
PMCPMC10751888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.