Table 1.
Reported and evaluated cost-effectiveness of the identified mHealth interventions.
| First Author, Year, Country | Effectiveness Measure | Reported | Evaluation | Remarks on Cost-Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complex Smartphone Communication | ||||
| Cubo E, 2016, Spain. [22] | UPDRS (I II III IV), QALY | Cost-effective in terms of UPDRS (II III IV) | Not reported if UPDRS (I II III IV), QALY and costs differ between alternatives. | Unknown due to lack of information |
| Gordon LG, 2014, Australia. [21] | QALY | dominant | Insignificant mean SF-6D score and mean annual total healthcare cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 55.4% probability to be cost-effective at WTP threshold of AUS$50,000 (£33,000)/QALY |
Not cost-effective |
| Stoddart A 2015, UK [18] | QALY | Not cost-effective | No significant differences in costs or QALY gain was observed for telemonitoring. CEAC showed 10.1% or 14.9% probability to be cost-effective at NICE threshold of £20,000 or £30,000, respectively. |
Not cost-effective |
| Udsen FW, 2017, Denmark. [19] | QALY | Not cost-effective | No significant differences in costs or QALY gain was observed for tele-healthare. CEAC showed 50% probability of cost-effectiveness at €55,000 WTP for QALY. |
Not cost-effective |
| Whittaker F, 2014, Australia. [14] | Cost savings | Cost-effective | Outcome was assumed to be equal between treatment alternatives. Not reported if costs differ between treatment alternatives. |
Unknown due to lack of information |
| Simple Text-Based Communication | ||||
| Barnett T, 2007, USA. [13] |
QALY | Cost-effective | Not reported if QALY and costs differ between alternatives. | Unknown due to lack of information |
| Burn E, 2017, Australia. [15] | QALY | Dominant | Significant differences were observed in costs and effects for Text me. | Cost-effective (Dominant) |
| Choi Yoo SJ, 2014, USA. [23] | DFD, QALY based on i)DFD, ii) SF-6D, and iii) modified EQ-5D | Cost-effective for DFD, QALY based on i) DFD, and ii) modified EQ-5D | Significant differences were observed in DFD, QALY based on (i) DFD, (ii) SF-6D and (iii) EQ-5D. Not reported if costs differ between alternatives. |
Unknown due to lack of information |
| Cui Y, 2013, Canada. [16] | QALY | HLM not cost-effective | Simulation results showed that cost differences were not significant but QALY differences were significant for HL CEAC showed 95.4% probability to be cost-effective at $100,000 WTP for HL and 85.8 % probability to be cost-effective at threshold of CAD 50,000/QALY. |
HLM not cost-effective |
| Katalenic B, 2015, USA. [20] | QALY | Cost-effective | QALY differences are not statistically or clinically significant (data not shown) Costs are significantly lower for DRMS. |
Cost-effective |
| Maddison R, 2015, New Zealand. [17] | QALY, MET-hour of walking, leisure activity | Not cost-effective for QALY, cost-effective for both MET-hour of walking and leisure activity. | Significant differences were observed in MET-hour of walking and leisure activity in favor of the Heart intervention. No significant differences were observed in QALYs. Not reported if costs differ between alternatives. There would be a 72% and 90% probability of this intervention being cost-effective if WTP of the decision maker is NZD20,000 (€10,600) and NZD 50,000(€26,500). |
Unknown due to lack of information for MET-hour of walking and leisure activity. Cost-effective for QALY based on threshold of USD 50 000 used in this study. |
CEAC: cost-effectiveness acceptability curve; DFD: Depression free days; DRMS: diabetes remote monitoring and management system; HL: health lines; HLM: "Health Lines + Monitoring”; MET: metabolic equivalent; NICE: the national institute for health and care excellence; QALY: quality adjusted life years; UPDRS: unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale; WTP: willingness to pay.