2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Context

          Telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions are effective in practice; however, limited evidence exists regarding their cost-effectiveness.

          Objective

          To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions for improving health outcomes in adults with chronic disease.

          Data sources

          PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase databases were systematically searched from database inception to November 2021. Included studies were randomized controlled trials delivering a telehealth-delivered diet intervention conducted with adults with a chronic disease and that reported on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis outcomes.

          Data extraction

          All studies were independently screened and extracted, and quality was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

          Data analysis

          All extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to their telehealth modality and payer perspective, and were analyzed narratively.

          Results

          Twelve randomized controlled trials comprising 5 phone-only interventions, 3 mobile health (mHealth), 2 online, and 1 each using a combination of phone–online or phone–mHealth interventions, were included in this review. mHealth interventions were the most cost-effective intervention in all studies. Across all telehealth interventions and cost analyses from health service perspectives, 60% of studies were cost-effective. From a societal perspective, however, 33% of studies reported that the interventions were cost-effective. Of the 10 studies using cost-utility analyses, 3 were cost saving and more effective, making the intervention dominant, 1 study reported no difference in costs or effectiveness, and the remaining 6 studies reported increased cost and effectiveness, meaning payers must decide whether this falls within an acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold for them. Quality of study reporting varied with between 63% to 92%, with an average of 77% of CHEERS items reported.

          Conclusion

          Telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions in chronic disease populations appear to be cost-effective from a health perspective, and particularly mHealth modalities. These findings support telehealth-delivered nutrition care as a clinically beneficial, cost-effective intervention delivery modality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

          Summary Background Suboptimal diet is an important preventable risk factor for non-communicable diseases (NCDs); however, its impact on the burden of NCDs has not been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the consumption of major foods and nutrients across 195 countries and to quantify the impact of their suboptimal intake on NCD mortality and morbidity. Methods By use of a comparative risk assessment approach, we estimated the proportion of disease-specific burden attributable to each dietary risk factor (also referred to as population attributable fraction) among adults aged 25 years or older. The main inputs to this analysis included the intake of each dietary factor, the effect size of the dietary factor on disease endpoint, and the level of intake associated with the lowest risk of mortality. Then, by use of disease-specific population attributable fractions, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), we calculated the number of deaths and DALYs attributable to diet for each disease outcome. Findings In 2017, 11 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 10–12) deaths and 255 million (234–274) DALYs were attributable to dietary risk factors. High intake of sodium (3 million [1–5] deaths and 70 million [34–118] DALYs), low intake of whole grains (3 million [2–4] deaths and 82 million [59–109] DALYs), and low intake of fruits (2 million [1–4] deaths and 65 million [41–92] DALYs) were the leading dietary risk factors for deaths and DALYs globally and in many countries. Dietary data were from mixed sources and were not available for all countries, increasing the statistical uncertainty of our estimates. Interpretation This study provides a comprehensive picture of the potential impact of suboptimal diet on NCD mortality and morbidity, highlighting the need for improving diet across nations. Our findings will inform implementation of evidence-based dietary interventions and provide a platform for evaluation of their impact on human health annually. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Covid-19 — Implications for the Health Care System

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions

              Background Mobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of costs and consequences of interventions (one categorized as a primary mHealth intervention or mHealth intervention as a component of other interventions), health and economic outcomes and published in English. Full economic evaluations were appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results Searches identified 5902 results, of which 318 were examined at full text, and 39 were included in this review. The 39 studies spanned 19 countries, most of which were conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries (34, 87.2%). Primary mHealth interventions (35, 89.7%), behavior change communication type interventions (e.g., improve attendance rates, medication adherence) (27, 69.2%), and short messaging system (SMS) as the mHealth function (e.g., used to send reminders, information, provide support, conduct surveys or collect data) (22, 56.4%) were most frequent; the most frequent disease or condition focuses were outpatient clinic attendance, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 79.6% (range 47.62–100, STD 14.18) and the top quartile reported 91.3–100%. In 29 studies (74.3%), researchers reported that the mHealth intervention was cost-effective, economically beneficial, or cost saving at base case. Conclusions Findings highlight a growing body of economic evidence for mHealth interventions. Although all studies included a comparison of intervention effectiveness of a health-related outcome and reported economic data, many did not report all recommended economic outcome items and were lacking in comprehensive analysis. The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis. Further research is needed in low and low-middle income countries and to understand the impact of different mHealth types. Following established economic reporting guidelines will improve this body of research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Nutr Rev
                Nutr Rev
                nutritionreviews
                Nutrition Reviews
                Oxford University Press
                0029-6643
                1753-4887
                December 2023
                04 April 2023
                04 April 2023
                : 81
                : 12
                : 1599-1611
                Affiliations
                Centre for Online Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Bond University Nutrition and Dietetics Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University , Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
                La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                Centre for Online Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Princess Alexandra Hospital ; and the School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Bond University Nutrition and Dietetics Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University , Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
                Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Princess Alexandra Hospital ; and the School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Health , Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Healthcare Excellence and Innovation, Metro North Hospital and Health Service , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University , Nathan, Queensland; and the Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University , Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Online Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University , Nathan, Queensland; and the Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
                Author notes
                J.T. Kelly, Centre for Online Health, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ground Floor, Building 33, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102 Australia; The University of Queensland, Gold Coast, QLD 4215 Australia. E-mail: jaimon.kelly@ 123456uq.edu.au .
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0232-5848
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3205-9165
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7356-653X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4479-1284
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4298-9369
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8878-0317
                Article
                nuad032
                10.1093/nutrit/nuad032
                10639107
                37016937
                07f24dbf-6119-4338-8c74-b5c3c2fb00a8
                © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Life Sciences Institute.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00060

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                cost,cost-effectiveness,diet,digital health,economic,mhealth,nutrition,telehealth
                Nutrition & Dietetics
                cost, cost-effectiveness, diet, digital health, economic, mhealth, nutrition, telehealth

                Comments

                Comment on this article