Success factors in high-effect, low-cost eHealth programs for patients with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hypertension ambulatory blood pressure monitoring costs and costs analysis healthcare costs self-management telemedicine

Journal

European journal of preventive cardiology
ISSN: 2047-4881
Titre abrégé: Eur J Prev Cardiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101564430

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 12 2021
Historique:
received: 08 05 2020
accepted: 10 06 2020
entrez: 20 12 2021
pubmed: 21 12 2021
medline: 5 4 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

eHealth programs can lower blood pressure but also drive healthcare costs. This study aims to review the evidence on the effectiveness and costs of eHealth for hypertension and assess commonalities in programs with high effect and low additional cost. Overall, the incremental decrease in systolic blood pressure using eHealth, compared to usual care, was 3.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.98-4.77) mmHg at 6 months and 5.68 (95% CI 4.77-6.59) mmHg at 12 months' follow-up. High intensity interventions were more effective, resulting in a 2.6 (95% CI 0.5-4.7) (at 6 months) and 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-5.1) (at 12 months) lower systolic blood pressure, but were also more costly, resulting in €170 (95% CI 56-284) higher costs at 6 months and €342 (95% CI 128-556) at 12 months. Programs that included a high volume of participants showed €203 (95% CI 99-307) less costs than those with a low volume at 6 months, and €525 (95% CI 299-751) at 12 months without showing a difference in systolic blood pressure. Studies that implemented eHealth as a partial replacement, rather than addition to usual care, were also less costly (€119 (95% CI -38-201 at 6 months) and €346 (95% CI 261-430 at 12 months)) without being less effective. Evidence on eHealth programs for hypertension is ambiguous, heterogeneity on effectiveness and costs is high (I2 = 56-98%). Effective eHealth with limited additional costs should focus on high intensity interventions, involve a large number of participants and use eHealth as a partial replacement for usual care.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
eHealth programs can lower blood pressure but also drive healthcare costs. This study aims to review the evidence on the effectiveness and costs of eHealth for hypertension and assess commonalities in programs with high effect and low additional cost.
RESULTS
Overall, the incremental decrease in systolic blood pressure using eHealth, compared to usual care, was 3.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.98-4.77) mmHg at 6 months and 5.68 (95% CI 4.77-6.59) mmHg at 12 months' follow-up. High intensity interventions were more effective, resulting in a 2.6 (95% CI 0.5-4.7) (at 6 months) and 3.3 (95% CI 1.4-5.1) (at 12 months) lower systolic blood pressure, but were also more costly, resulting in €170 (95% CI 56-284) higher costs at 6 months and €342 (95% CI 128-556) at 12 months. Programs that included a high volume of participants showed €203 (95% CI 99-307) less costs than those with a low volume at 6 months, and €525 (95% CI 299-751) at 12 months without showing a difference in systolic blood pressure. Studies that implemented eHealth as a partial replacement, rather than addition to usual care, were also less costly (€119 (95% CI -38-201 at 6 months) and €346 (95% CI 261-430 at 12 months)) without being less effective. Evidence on eHealth programs for hypertension is ambiguous, heterogeneity on effectiveness and costs is high (I2 = 56-98%).
CONCLUSION
Effective eHealth with limited additional costs should focus on high intensity interventions, involve a large number of participants and use eHealth as a partial replacement for usual care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34929044
pii: 6470904
doi: 10.1177/2047487320957170
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1579-1587

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Auteurs

Sebastiaan Blok (S)

Department of Cardiology, Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal and Vascular Medicine, The Netherlands.

Eva L van der Linden (EL)

Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal and Vascular Medicine, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Public Health, The Netherlands.

G Aernout Somsen (GA)

Department of Cardiology, Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands, The Netherlands.

Igor I Tulevski (II)

Department of Cardiology, Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands, The Netherlands.

Michiel M Winter (MM)

Department of Cardiology, Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands, The Netherlands.
Department of Cardiology, University of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Cardiology, The Netherlands.

Bert-Jan H van den Born (BH)

Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Internal and Vascular Medicine, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Public Health, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH