PharmacoEconomics · 2026
Identifying and Comparing Intervention Cost Components in Remote Patient Monitoring: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Heilig Anna L, van den Hout Wilbert B, van den Akker-van Marle M Elske
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Remote patient monitoring has shown promising outcomes, such as improved disease awareness and reduced hospital stay. However, assessing the cost of the remote patient monitoring itself is challenging owing to the lack of standardization and transparency in economic evaluations of remote patient monitoring. This review aims to identify and compare the cost components used to estimate the remote patient monitoring intervention costs and the reported challenges in assessing them.
METHODS: We performed a scoping review of studies published in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science that conducted an economic evaluation of a remote patient monitoring between January 2019 and March 2026. Titles and abstracts were screened. Relevant articles were subjected to full-text screening to assess eligibility, and reported cost components were counted based on predefined categories. Difficulties reported by the economic evaluation authors (challenges) were extracted and analyzed using thematic synthesis.
RESULTS: A total of 1282 articles were identified, of which 84 studies met the eligibility criteria. Forty-nine (58%) studies had an observational design, and the remaining studies had a model design. Components of remote patient monitoring intervention costs were reported in 71 (85%) of the included studies, with staff salaries (62%) and equipment/technology (56%) costs being the most frequently reported. The most commonly reported challenge was uncertainty about which remote patient monitoring cost categories to include.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the disparities in the assessment and reporting of remote patient monitoring intervention costs in economic evaluations. We offer an updated checklist and guidance for assessing and reporting intervention costs in future economic evaluations.
METHODS: We performed a scoping review of studies published in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science that conducted an economic evaluation of a remote patient monitoring between January 2019 and March 2026. Titles and abstracts were screened. Relevant articles were subjected to full-text screening to assess eligibility, and reported cost components were counted based on predefined categories. Difficulties reported by the economic evaluation authors (challenges) were extracted and analyzed using thematic synthesis.
RESULTS: A total of 1282 articles were identified, of which 84 studies met the eligibility criteria. Forty-nine (58%) studies had an observational design, and the remaining studies had a model design. Components of remote patient monitoring intervention costs were reported in 71 (85%) of the included studies, with staff salaries (62%) and equipment/technology (56%) costs being the most frequently reported. The most commonly reported challenge was uncertainty about which remote patient monitoring cost categories to include.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the disparities in the assessment and reporting of remote patient monitoring intervention costs in economic evaluations. We offer an updated checklist and guidance for assessing and reporting intervention costs in future economic evaluations.