Table 2.

Table of included studies.

Study	Country	Study design	Type of economic evaluation	Perspective	Population	Intervention	Comparison	Outcomes	Conclusions
Bradford et al. (14)	Australia	Retrospective	Cost minimization	Children's Health Service (state-wide service)	Children requiring palliative services (sample size not specified, only number of consultations n=95)	Home Telehealth Programme video consultations	Usual care (as either home visit or outpatient department consultations)	Assumed to be equivalent irrespective of mode of service delivery	HTP Home video consultations are cost-saving compared to usual care
Zhang and Fu (16)	USA	Randomized controlled trial	Cost-effectiveness (utility)	Society, healthcare providers and patients	Prostate cancer patients with persistent urinary incontinence (n = 336)	Biofeedback PFME + support group sessions Biofeedback PFME + one-to-one phone sessions.	Usual care (for both Usual Care-UC and Intervention-Non-Participating-INP groups)	HRQoL (EQ-5D), QALYs	Intervention is cost-effective compared to no intervention
van der Hout et al. (15)	Netherlands	Randomized controlled trial	Cost-utility	Societal	Survivors of head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and lymphoma (n = 625)	eHealth self-management application (Oncokompas)	Care as usual wait-list (late access to intervention)	HRQoL (EQ-5D), QALYs	The eHealth intervention has similar effectiveness and non-significantly lower costs compared to care as usual