Table 6.

Cost-effectiveness of digital health.

Study	Population	Design	Intervention		Comparator or comparators		Findings
			Description	Sample size	Description	Sample size
Cuperus et al [88]	Generalized osteoarthritis	RCTa	2 in-person group sessions+telephone monitoring by nurse	72	Multidisciplinary in-person group intervention led by PTb	75	No difference in quality-adjusted life years and total societal costs
Kloek et al [92]	Knee or hip osteoarthritis	RCT	Website+in-person PT	108	Usual in-person PT	99	Lower intervention costs and medication costs for intervention vs comparator but no difference in total societal and health care costs
Marsh et al [89,90]	Post-KRc or HRd	RCT	Web-based platform to schedule patient visits	118	Usual protocol to schedule visits	111	Lower costs for intervention vs comparator
Tousignant et al [91]	Post-KR	RCT	Custom hardware with videoconferencing and remote-controlled cameras	97	In-person home-based PT	100	Lower costs for intervention vs comparator
Fusco et al [93]	Post-KR	Markov decision modeling	10 videoconferencing sessions and 10 in-person PT sessions	—e	20 in-person PT sessions	—	High probability of the intervention group being cost-effective, particularly when transportation was included
El Ashmawy et al [74]	Post-KR or HR	Retrospective study	Remote joint replacement clinic follow-up at 1-year, 7-years, and every 3-years after in-person consultations at 2 weeks and 6-weeks	1749	N/Af	N/A	Estimated saving of £42,644 (US $53,439.93) per year with intervention

^aRCT: randomized controlled trial.

^bPT: physical therapy.

^cKR: knee replacement.

^dHR: hip replacement.

^eNot available.

^fN/A: not applicable.