Telehealth is a promising tool for delivering lifestyle interventions for the management of health conditions. However, limited evidence exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current literature reporting on the cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered diet and/or exercise interventions.
Methods
Four electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Embase) were searched for published literature from database inception to November 2020. This review adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and the ISPOR Criteria for Cost-Effectiveness Review Outcomes Checklist. The quality of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to telehealth modality, organised into tables and reported narratively.
Results
Twenty-four studies of controlled trials (11 combined diet and exercise, 9 exercise-only and 4 diet-only telehealth-delivered interventions) were included for data extraction and quality assessment. Interventions were reported as cost-effective in 12 studies (50%), five studies (21%) reported inconclusive results, and seven studies (29%) reported that the interventions were not cost-effective. Telephone interventions were applied in eight studies (33%), seven studies (29%) used internet interventions, six studies (25%) used a combination of internet and telephone interventions, and three studies (13%) evaluated mHealth interventions. Quality of study reporting varied with between 54% and 92% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items reported.
Conclusions
This review suggests that telehealth-delivered lifestyle interventions can be cost-effective compared to traditional care. There is a need for further investigations that employ rigorous methodology and economic reporting, including appropriate decision analytical models and longer timeframes.
Australian Institute of Health Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2017–18. Canberra: AIHW, 2019.
2.
SnoswellCTaylorMLComansT, et al.Determining if telehealth can reduce health system costs: Scoping review. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e17298.
3.
BlumenthalDFowlerEJAbramsM, et al.Covid-19 – implications for the health care system. N Engl J Med2020; 383: 1483–1488.
4.
MonagheshEHajizadehA. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: A systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health2020; 20: 1–9.
5.
HanlonPDainesLCampbellC, et al.Telehealth interventions to support self-management of long-term conditions: A systematic metareview of diabetes, heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. J Med Internet Res2017; 19: e172.
6.
RyuS. Telemedicine: Opportunities and developments in member states: Report on the second global survey on eHealth 2009 (global observatory for eHealth series, volume 2). Healthc Inform Res2012; 18: 153–155.
7.
ProchaskaJJProchaskaJO. A review of multiple health behavior change interventions for primary prevention. Am J Lifestyle Med2011; 5: 208–221.
8.
GravesNBarnettAGHaltonKA, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a telephone-delivered intervention for physical activity and diet. PLoS One2009; 4: e7135.
9.
KellyJTAllman-FarinelliMChenJ, et al.Dietitians Australia position statement on telehealth. Nutr Diet2020; 77: 406–415.
10.
KellyJTReidlingerDPHoffmannTC, et al.Telehealth methods to deliver dietary interventions in adults with chronic disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr2016; 104: 1693–1702.
11.
DawsonJHowellMHowardK, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a mobile phone text messaging program (KIDNEYTEXT) targeting dietary behaviours in people receiving haemodialysis. J Hum Nutr Diet, 2021: 1–9. DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12937
12.
JerantAFvon Friederichs-FitzwaterMMMooreM. Patients’ perceived barriers to active self-management of chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns2005; 57: 300–307.
13.
SpeyerRDenmanDWilkes-GillanS, et al.Effects of telehealth by allied health professionals and nurses in rural and remote areas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med2018; 50: 225–235.
14.
SteventonABardsleyMBillingsJ, et al.Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: Findings from the whole system demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ2012; 344: e3874.
15.
WoottonR. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management – an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare2012; 18: 211–220.
16.
PolisenaJCoyleDCoyleK, et al.Home telehealth for chronic disease management: A systematic review and an analysis of economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2009; 25: 339–349.
17.
BarlowJSinghDBayerS, et al.A systematic review of the benefits of home telecare for frail elderly people and those with long-term conditions. J Telemed Telecare2007; 13: 172–179.
18.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021: 372. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71:n71
19.
MandrikOSeverensJLBardachA, et al.Critical appraisal of systematic reviews with costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes: An ISPOR good practices task force report. Value Health2021; 24: 463–472.
20.
ClarkJMSandersSCarterM, et al.Improving the translation of search strategies using the polyglot search translator: A randomized controlled trial. J Med Libr Assoc2020; 108: 195–207.
21.
The EndNote Team. Endnote. EndNote X9 ed. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate, 2013.
22.
HusereauDDrummondMPetrouS, et al.Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Br Med J2013; 29: 117–122.
23.
O'BrienKMVan DongenJMWilliamsA, et al.Economic evaluation of telephone-based weight loss support for patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health2018; 18: 1–13.
24.
TurkstraEHawkesALOldenburgB, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a coronary heart disease secondary prevention program in patients with myocardial infarction: Results from a randomised controlled trial (ProActive heart). BMC Cardiovasc Disord2013; 13: 33–33.
25.
WhelanMEGoodeADEakinEG, et al.Feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telephone-based weight loss program delivered via a hospital outpatient setting. Transl Behav Med2016; 6: 386–395.
26.
WhittakerFWadeV. The costs and benefits of technology-enabled, home-based cardiac rehabilitation measured in a randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare2014; 20: 419–422.
27.
WilliamsAvan DongenJMKamperSJ, et al.Economic evaluation of a healthy lifestyle intervention for chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pain2019; 23: 621–634.
28.
HwangRMorrisNRMandrusiakA, et al.Cost-utility analysis of home-based telerehabilitation compared with centre-based rehabilitation in patients with heart failure. Heart Lung Circ2019; 28: 1795–1803.
29.
KellyJTConleyMHoffmannT, et al.A coaching program to improve dietary intake of patients with CKD: eNTICE-CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2020; 15: 330–340.
30.
GussenhovenAHvan WierMFBosmansJE, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a distance lifestyle counselling programme among overweight employees from a company perspective, ALIFE@Work: A randomized controlled trial. Work2013; 46: 337–346.
31.
KloekCJJvan DongenJMde BakkerDH, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: A cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health2018; 18: 1082.
32.
KraalJJVan den Akker-Van MarleMEAbu-HannaA, et al.Clinical and cost-effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to conventional, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: Results of the FIT@Home study. Eur J Prev Cardiol2017; 24: 1260–1273.
33.
SumanASchaafsmaFGvan DongenJM, et al.Effectiveness and cost-utility of a multifaceted eHealth strategy to improve back pain beliefs of patients with non-specific low back pain: A cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open2019; 9: e030879.
34.
van KeulenHBosmansJTulderM, et al.Cost-effectiveness of tailored print communication, telephone motivational interviewing, and a combination of the two: Results of an economic evaluation alongside the vitalum randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2011; 8: 4.
35.
van VugtVABosmansJEFinchAP, et al.Cost-effectiveness of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation with and without physiotherapy support for adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome in general practice. BMJ Open2020; 10: e035583.
36.
van WierMFDekkersJCBosmansJE, et al.Economic evaluation of a weight control program with e-mail and telephone counseling among overweight employees: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2012; 9: 112–112.
37.
LittlePStuartBHobbsFR, et al.Randomised controlled trial and economic analysis of an internet-based weight management programme: POWeR+ (Positive Online Weight Reduction). Health Technol Assess2017; 21: 1–62.
38.
McConnonAKirkSFCockroftJE, et al.The internet for weight control in an obese sample: Results of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res2007; 7: 206–206.
39.
PaulLRenfrewLFreemanJ, et al.Web-based physiotherapy for people affected by multiple sclerosis: A single blind, randomized controlled feasibility study. Clin Rehabil2019; 33: 473–484.
40.
SalisburyCO’CathainAThomasC, et al.Telehealth for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Br Med J2016; 353: i2647.
41.
SniehottaFFEvansEHSainsburyK, et al.Behavioural intervention for weight loss maintenance versus standard weight advice in adults with obesity: A randomised controlled trial in the UK (NULevel Trial). PLoS Med2019; 16: e1002793.
42.
FrederixIHansenDConinxK, et al.Effect of comprehensive cardiac telerehabilitation on one-year cardiovascular rehospitalization rate, medical costs and quality of life: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol2016; 23: 674–682.
43.
ChungLMLawQPFongSS, et al.A cost-effectiveness analysis of teledietetics in short-, intermediate-, and long-term weight reduction. J Telemed Telecare2015; 21: 268–275.
44.
DelahantyLMLevyDEChangY, et al.Effectiveness of lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes in primary care: The REAL HEALTH-diabetes randomized clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med2020; 35: 2637–2646.
45.
JooNSParkYWParkKH, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a community-based obesity control programme. J Telemed Telecare2010; 16: 63–67.
46.
MaddisonRPfaeffliLWhittakerR, et al.A mobile phone intervention increases physical activity in people with cardiovascular disease: Results from the HEART randomized controlled trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol2015; 22: 701–709.
47.
MaddisonRRawstornJCStewartRAH, et al.Effects and costs of real-time cardiac telerehabilitation: Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Heart2019; 105: 122–129.
48.
FrickKD. Microcosting quantity data collection methods. Med Care2009; 47: S76–S81.
49.
BalestroniGBertolottiG. EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D): An instrument for measuring quality of life. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis2012; 78: 155–159.
50.
LinsLCarvalhoFM. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: Scoping review. SAGE Open Med2016; 4: 2050312116671725–25.
51.
ZhaiY. A call for addressing barriers to telemedicine: Health disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychother Psychosom2021; 90: 64–66.
52.
WhittenPSMairFSHaycoxA, et al.Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. Br Med J2002; 324: 1434–1437.
53.
RobinsonSM. Improving nutrition to support healthy ageing: What are the opportunities for intervention?Proc Nutr Soc2018; 77: 257–264.
54.
LiberatoSCBailieRBrimblecombeJ. Nutrition interventions at point-of-sale to encourage healthier food purchasing: A systematic review. BMC Public Health2014; 14: 1–14.
55.
RolloMEBurrowsTVinczeLJ, et al.Cost evaluation of providing evidence-based dietetic services for weight management in adults: In-person versus eHealth delivery. Nutr Diet2018; 75: 35–43.
56.
DarioABMoreti CabralAAlmeidaL, et al.Effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions in the management of non-specific low back pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Spine J2017; 17: 1342–1351.
57.
Sequi-DominguezIAlvarez-BuenoCMartinez-VizcainoV, et al.Effectiveness of Mobile health interventions promoting physical activity and lifestyle interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk among individuals With metabolic syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e17790.
58.
MitchellLBallLRossL, et al.Effectiveness of dietetic consultations in primary health care: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Acad Nutr Diet2017; 117: 1941–1962.
59.
FiskMLivingstoneAPitSW. Telehealth in the context of COVID-19: Changing perspectives in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e19264.
60.
BriggsA. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: Size matters. Br Med J2000; 321: 1362–1363.
61.
DrummondM. Economic analysis alongside controlled trials: An introduction for clinical researchers. London: Department of Health, 1994.
62.
O'SullivanAKThompsonDDrummondMF. Collection of health-economic data alongside clinical trials: Is there a future for piggyback evaluations?Value Health2005; 8: 67–79.
63.
BeratarrecheaALeeAGWillnerJM, et al.The impact of mobile health interventions on chronic disease outcomes in developing countries: A systematic review. Telemed J E Health2014; 20: 75–82.
64.
O’MahonyJFNewallATvan RosmalenJ. Dealing with time in health economic evaluation: Methodological issues and recommendations for practice. Pharmacoeconomics2015; 33: 1255–1268.
65.
MorrisonAPolisenaJHusereauD, et al.The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2012; 28: 138–144.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
