Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Nov;14(9):896-904.
doi: 10.1089/tmj.2008.0009.

A systematic review of the key indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness

Stephanie Vergara Rojas  1 , Marie-Pierre Gagnon
Affiliations

A systematic review of the key indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness

Stephanie Vergara Rojas et al. Telemed J E Health. 2008 Nov.

Abstract

Telehomecare is considered one of the most successful applications of telehealth. However, despite increasing evidence of telehomecare benefits, the diffusion of these services is still limited. Decision-makers need strong evidence in order to expand the development of telehomecare to various populations, regions, and health conditions. The objective of this review is to provide a basis for decision-making by identifying common indicators from the literature on telehomecare. A comprehensive review of the literature on the cost-effectiveness of telehomecare was conducted in specialized bibliographic databases. A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. First, selected studies were analyzed to identify and classify the indicators that better addressed the cost-effectiveness impacts of telehomecare projects. Then, a synthesis of the evidence was done by exploring the relative cost-effectiveness of telehomecare applications. The analyses show that there is fair evidence of cost-effectiveness for many telehomecare applications. However, the heterogeneity among cost-effectiveness indicators in the applications reviewed and the methodological limitations of the studies impede the possibility of generalizing the findings. This suggests the need for a set of common indicators that could be applied for assessing the costeffectiveness of telehomecare projects. This review provides knowledge on the indicators available for assessing cost-effectiveness in telehomecare projects. It appears that the specific context in which the projects take place, meaning different patients, environments, technologies, and healthcare systems, should be taken into account when selecting indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Search strategy. THC, telehomecare.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cost-effectiveness in telehomecare.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Britton BP, Martha Keehner E, Dan BR, Kahlid M. Measuring costs and quality of TeleHomecare. Home Health Care Manage Pract. 2000;12:27.
    1. Hebert MA, Korabek B, Scott RE. Moving research into practice: A decision framework for integrating home telehealth into chronic illness care. Int J Med Informatics. 2006;75:786–794. - PubMed
    1. Reardon T. Research findings and strategies for assessing telemedicine costs. Telemed e-Health. 2005;11:348–369. - PubMed
    1. Jester R, Hicks C. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to compare Hospital at Home and in-patient interventions. Part 1. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12:13–19. - PubMed
    1. Jester R, Hicks C. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to compare Hospital at Home and in-patient interventions. Part 2. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12:20–27. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding