Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39582599›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024

A cost-minimisation population-based analysis of telehealth-integrated antenatal care.

YiJie Neo, Emily Callander, Ben W Mol, Ryan Hodges, Kirsten R Palmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Review
  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

5 authors.

YiJie NeoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Emily CallanderUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Ryan HodgesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Kirsten R PalmerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Victoria's largest maternity service provider implemented a telehealth-integrated antenatal care (ANC) schedule for high- and low-risk pregnancies. The program has been maintained since March 2020. Given ever-increasing healthcare costs, economic evaluation is crucial to ensure value and guide ongoing use. Methods: The aim of the study was to perform a cost-minimisation analysis of telehealth integrated ANC compared to conventional in-person ANC, from the hospital and patient perspectives. We hypothesised that the costs associated with telehealth integrated ANC would be less than in-person ANC. We generated propensity score matched pre- and post-telehealth cohorts from women with a singleton pregnancy who received ANC and birthed at Monash Health from 1 Jan 2018-22 Mar 2020 (pre-telehealth), and 20 Apr 2020-31 Dec 2021 (post-telehealth). Data were extracted from electronic medical and finance records. We assigned costs for all Monash Health outpatient, inpatient, and emergency department episodes to calculate mean cost per birth. Patient travel costs were estimated based on distance residing from hospital. Findings: Matched pre- and post-telehealth cohorts of n = 13,534 each were created. There were no significant differences in stillbirth, pre-eclampsia, severe maternal morbidity, or death. There was a AU$133 (0.98%, 95% CI [-0.17%, 2.16%]) increase in cost per birth in the post-telehealth cohort. This was driven by increased hospital costs (AU$340 or 2.64% increase, [1.44%, 3.86%]), due to a 4.78% increase in antenatal inpatient episodes and 3.51% increase in outpatient appointments post-telehealth. Increased care complexity was noted in the post-telehealth period with increased rates of gestational diabetes, caesarean birth, and specialty-led care (p-values all <0.0001). In contrast, patient costs of accessing healthcare fell significantly from AU$562 pre-telehealth to AU$355 post-telehealth (difference -AU$207 (-36.81%, [-37.46%, -36.16%]). Interpretation: Telehealth supported the provision of a greater volume of antenatal care to more complex pregnancies, while maintaining safety and quality of care, for only a minimal cost increase to health funders and substantial cost savings to patients. This finding provides reassurance regarding the financial viability of telehealth-integrated antenatal care. Funding: None.

Indexed as

Health economicsPregnancyPrenatal careTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39582599
PMCPMC11585784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.