Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions are effective in practice; however, limited evidence exists regarding their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions for improving health outcomes in adults with chronic disease. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase databases were systematically searched from database inception to November 2021. Included studies were randomized controlled trials delivering a telehealth-delivered diet intervention conducted with adults with a chronic disease and that reported on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: All studies were independently screened and extracted, and quality was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. DATA ANALYSIS: All extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to their telehealth modality and payer perspective, and were analyzed narratively. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials comprising 5 phone-only interventions, 3 mobile health (mHealth), 2 online, and 1 each using a combination of phone-online or phone-mHealth interventions, were included in this review. mHealth interventions were the most cost-effective intervention in all studies. Across all telehealth interventions and cost analyses from health service perspectives, 60% of studies were cost-effective. From a societal perspective, however, 33% of studies reported that the interventions were cost-effective. Of the 10 studies using cost-utility analyses, 3 were cost saving and more effective, making the intervention dominant, 1 study reported no difference in costs or effectiveness, and the remaining 6 studies reported increased cost and effectiveness, meaning payers must decide whether this falls within an acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold for them. Quality of study reporting varied with between 63% to 92%, with an average of 77% of CHEERS items reported. CONCLUSION: Telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions in chronic disease populations appear to be cost-effective from a health perspective, and particularly mHealth modalities. These findings support telehealth-delivered nutrition care as a clinically beneficial, cost-effective intervention delivery modality.

Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered diet and exercise interventions: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Telehealth is a promising tool for delivering lifestyle interventions for the management of health conditions. However, limited evidence exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current literature reporting on the cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered diet and/or exercise interventions. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Embase) were searched for published literature from database inception to November 2020. This review adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and the ISPOR Criteria for Cost-Effectiveness Review Outcomes Checklist. The quality of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to telehealth modality, organised into tables and reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies of controlled trials (11 combined diet and exercise, 9 exercise-only and 4 diet-only telehealth-delivered interventions) were included for data extraction and quality assessment. Interventions were reported as cost-effective in 12 studies (50%), five studies (21%) reported inconclusive results, and seven studies (29%) reported that the interventions were not cost-effective. Telephone interventions were applied in eight studies (33%), seven studies (29%) used internet interventions, six studies (25%) used a combination of internet and telephone interventions, and three studies (13%) evaluated mHealth interventions. Quality of study reporting varied with between 54% and 92% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items reported. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that telehealth-delivered lifestyle interventions can be cost-effective compared to traditional care. There is a need for further investigations that employ rigorous methodology and economic reporting, including appropriate decision analytical models and longer timeframes.