Table 1.

General characteristics and quality assessment of the included studies.

Technologies or devices for digital health intervention delivery with references and year		Country	Targeted disease	Model type	Perspective	Time horizon	Intervention versus comparator	Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio	Cost-effective strategy (willingness-to-pay where available)	Source of funding	CHEERSa (%) (quality classification)
Short message service
	Burn et al, 2017 [19]	Australia	Coronary heart disease	Markov model	Australia health care system	Lifetime	TEXT MEb program versus UCc	TEXT ME program dominated UC	TEXT ME Program (Aus $64,000)	Industry	92 (Good)
Telephone support
	Grustam et al, 2018 [20]	United Kingdom	HFd	Markov model	UK third-party payer	0 years	TMe versus UC	€12,479 /QALYf	NTSg (€9000)	Not declared	92 (Good)
	Grustam et al, 2018 [20]	United Kingdom	HF	Markov model	UK third-party payer	0 years	NTS versus UC	€8795 /QALY	—h	—	—
	Grustam et al, 2018 [20]	United Kingdom	HF	Markov model	UK third-party payer	0 years	NTS versus TM	NTS dominated TM	—	—	—
Mobile apps
	Martín et al, 2014 [21]	Spain	HF	Markov model	Spain health care system	Not declared	CardioManager versus UC	€9.303/ QALY	CardioManager	Public organization	50 (Low)
Video conferencing system
	Mistry et al, 2013 [22]	United Kingdom	Congenital heart disease	Decision tree	UK health service	Lifetime	Telemedicine screening versus direct assessment	Telemedicine screening dominated direct assessment	Telemedicine screening (€20,000)	No funding	71 (Moderate)
	Whetten et al, 2018 [23]	United States	Stroke	Decision tree	US health care payer	90 days	ACCESSi program versus no program	ACCESS program dominated no program	ACCESS program	Public organization	75 (Moderate)
	Nelson et al, 2011 [24]	United States	Stroke	Decision tree	Society	90 days	Telestroke versus UC	US $108,363 /QALY	—	Public organization	92 (Good)
		United States	Stroke	Decision tree	Society	Lifetime	Telestroke versus UC	US $2449 /QALY	Telestroke (US $100,000)	—	—
	Demaerschalk et al, 2013 [25]	United States	Stroke	Markov model	Society	Lifetime	Telestroke versus UC	Telestroke dominated UC	Telestroke (US $50,000)	Industry	79 (Good)
	Nelson et al, 2016 [26]	United States	Stroke	Decision tree	A spoke hospital	Inpatient stay	Telestroke versus UC	US $25,991 /QALY	Telestroke (US $50,000)	Public organization	79 (Good)
	Nelson et al, 2016 [26]	United States	Stroke	Decision tree	A hub hospital	Inpatient stay	Telestroke versus UC	US $47,033 /QALY	—	—	—
Telemonitoring
	Thokala et al, 2013 [27]	United Kingdom	HF	Markov model	National Health Service in England and Wales	30 years	STS HMj versus UC	UC dominated STS HM	TM (€20,000)	Public organization	88 (Good)
	Thokala et al, 2013 [27]	United Kingdom	HF	Markov model	England and Wales	30 years	TM versus UC	£11,873 /QALY	—	—	—
	Thokala et al, 2013 [27]	United Kingdom	HF	Markov model	England and Wales	30 years	Structured telephone support with a human-to-human contact. versus TM	£228,035 /QALY	—	—	—
	Cowie et al, 2017 [28]	United Kingdom	HF	Markov model	UK health care payer	10 years	CardioMEMS vs UC	£19,274 /QALY	CardioMEMS (US $20,000)	Not declared	79 (Good)
	Sandhu et al, 2015 [29]	United States	HF	Markov model	Society	Life time	CardioMEMS versus UC	US $71,462 /QALY	CardioMEMS (US $150,000)	Public organization	88 (Good)
	Schmier et al, 2017 [30]	United States	HF	Markov model	US health care payer	5 years	CardioMEMS versus UC	US $44,832 /QALY	CardioMEMS (US $100,000)	Industry	71 (Moderate)
	Martinson et al, 2017 [31]	United States	HF	Markov model	US health care payer	5 years	CardioMEMS versus UC	US $12,262 /QALY	CardioMEMS (US $50,000)	Not declared	83 (Good)
Wearable medical device
	Healy et al, 2015 [32]	United States	SCAk	Markov model	Society	5 years	WCDl versus discharge home	US $26,436 /QALY	WCD (US $50,000)	Not declared	71 (Moderate)
	Healy et al, 2015 [32]	United States	SCA	Markov model	Society	5 years	WCD versus SNFm	WCD dominated SNF	—	—	—
	Healy et al, 2015 [32]	United States	SCA	Markov model	Society	5 years	WCD versus in-hospital stay	WCD dominated in-hospital stay	—	—	—

^aCHEERS: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards is a 24-item checklist with a maximum score of 24. Studies that fulfilled 100% of the items were classified as excellent quality, those that fulfilled between >75% and <100% of the items were classified as good quality, those that fulfilled between >50% and ≤75% were classified as moderate quality, and those that fulfilled ≤50% were classified as low quality.

^bTEXT ME: Tobacco, Exercise, and Diet Messages.

^cUC: usual care.

^dHF: heart failure.

^eTM: telemonitoring.

^fQALY: quality-adjusted life year.

^gNTS: nurse telephone support.

^hNot applicable.

ⁱACCESS: Access to Critical Cerebral Emergency Support Services.

^jSTS HM: structured telephone support with a human-to-machine interface.

^kSCA: sudden cardiac arrest.

^lWCD: wearable cardioverter-defibrillator.

^mSNF: skilled nursing facility.