title: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  eHealth potentially enhances quality of care and may reduce health care costs. However, a review of systematic reviews published in 2010 concluded that high-quality evidence on the benefits of eHealth interventions was still lacking.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effectiveness/cost-effectiveness of eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases to analyze whether, and to what possible extent, the outcome of recent research supports or differs from previous conclusions.
  
  
  METHODS
  Literature searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions published between August 2009 and December 2012. Articles were screened for relevance based on preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Citations of residual articles were screened for additional literature. Included papers were critically appraised using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement before data were extracted. Based on conclusions drawn by the authors of the included articles, reviews and meta-analyses were divided into 1 of 3 groups: suitable, promising, or limited evidence on effectiveness/cost-effectiveness. Cases of uncertainty were resolved by consensus discussion. Effect sizes were extracted from papers that included a meta-analysis. To compare our results with previous findings, a trend analysis was performed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Our literature searches yielded 31 eligible reviews, of which 20 (65%) reported on costs. Seven papers (23%) concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective, 13 (42%) underlined that evidence is promising, and others found limited or inconsistent proof. Methodological quality of the included reviews and meta-analyses was generally considered high. Trend analysis showed a considerable accumulation of literature on eHealth. However, a similar percentage of papers concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective or evidence is at least promising (65% vs 62%). Reviews focusing primarily on children or family caregivers still remained scarce. Although a pooled (subgroup) analysis of aggregate data from randomized studies was performed in a higher percentage of more recently published reviews (45% vs 27%), data on economic outcome measures were less frequently reported (65% vs 85%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The number of reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases has increased considerably in recent years. Most articles show eHealth is effective/cost-effective or at least suggest evidence is promising, which is consistent with previous findings. Although many researchers advocate larger, well-designed, controlled studies, we believe attention should be given to the development and evaluation of strategies to implement effective/cost-effective eHealth initiatives in daily practice, rather than to further strengthen current evidence.
authors.affiliation: Department of (Pediatric) Dermatology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
authors.forename: Niels J
authors.initials: NJ
authors.lastname: Elbert
authors.forename: Harmieke
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: van Os-Medendorp
authors.forename: Wilco
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: van Renselaar
authors.forename: Anne G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Ekeland
authors.forename: Leona
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Hakkaart-van Roijen
authors.forename: Hein
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Raat
authors.forename: Tamar E C
authors.initials: TE
authors.lastname: Nijsten
authors.forename: Suzanne G M A
authors.initials: SG
authors.lastname: Pasmans
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D019468:Disease Management; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D012196:Review Literature as Topic; D012648:Self Care / Q000191:economics; D017216:Telemedicine / Q000191:economics
keywords: cost effectiveness; eHealth; program effectiveness; review; telehealth; telemedicine
references.citation: J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(6):281-7
references.pmid: 21844172
references.citation: J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Oct;18(7):384-91
references.pmid: 23019605
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
references.pmid: 19621072
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2010 Jun 24;12(2):e23
references.pmid: 20581001
references.citation: J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Jun;18(4):211-20
references.pmid: 22674020
references.citation: Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Apr 1;113(4):1184-91
references.pmid: 15083019
references.citation: Diabet Med. 2011 Apr;28(4):455-63
references.pmid: 21392066
references.citation: J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(1):7-14
references.pmid: 21097564
references.citation: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Oct 27;54(18):1683-94
references.pmid: 19850208
references.citation: Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012;12(11):1-58
references.pmid: 23074421
references.citation: J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(1):1-6
references.pmid: 21097560
references.citation: Neuroradiology. 2008 Aug;50(8):653-64
references.pmid: 18560819
references.citation: Int J Pediatr Endocrinol. 2010;2010:
references.pmid: 20886054
references.citation: Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
references.pmid: 12111919
references.citation: Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012;12(1):1-86
references.pmid: 23074419
references.citation: J Rehabil Med. 2012 Nov;44(11):913-21
references.pmid: 23027316
references.citation: Maturitas. 2012 Oct;73(2):94-114
references.pmid: 22809497
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2011 Nov 19;6:122
references.pmid: 22098945
references.citation: J Clin Nurs. 2011 Nov;20(21-22):2997-3010
references.pmid: 21707807
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):361-6
references.pmid: 14998794
references.citation: Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 May;50(5):587-92
references.pmid: 23159157
references.citation: Int J Med Inform. 2012 Jan;81(1):1-11
references.pmid: 22104370
references.citation: Pain Pract. 2013 Jun;13(5):422-31
references.pmid: 23017210
references.citation: Health Policy. 2007 Jul;82(2):133-41
references.pmid: 17046097
references.citation: Am J Hypertens. 2011 Sep;24(9):989-98
references.pmid: 21654858
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 05;(10):CD008469
references.pmid: 21975783
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2010 Jun 16;12(2):e21
references.pmid: 20554500
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 06;(7):CD007718
references.pmid: 21735417
references.citation: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Sep 01;6(5):1185-96
references.pmid: 23063046
references.citation: Hypertension. 2011 Jan;57(1):29-38
references.pmid: 21115879
references.citation: Sao Paulo Med J. 2012;130(5):277-8
references.pmid: 23174864
references.citation: J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(2):68-76
references.pmid: 20008054
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Apr;79(1):5-13
references.pmid: 19744817
references.citation: J Pediatr Psychol. 2009 Jun;34(5):495-510
references.pmid: 19029142
references.citation: J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Jan;18(1):1-6
references.pmid: 22101609
references.citation: Bull World Health Organ. 2007 Nov;85(11):867-72
references.pmid: 18038077
references.citation: BMJ. 2012 Jun 21;344:e3874
references.pmid: 22723612
references.citation: Lancet. 2002 Jun 8;359(9322):1957-8
references.pmid: 12076546
references.citation: JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65
references.pmid: 15161896
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 31;13(4):e126
references.pmid: 22209829
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 30;6(3):e35
references.pmid: 15471761
references.citation: Pain. 2011 Aug;152(8):1740-1750
references.pmid: 21565446
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2011 Jan 19;6:6
references.pmid: 21244714
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Aug 04;(8):CD007228
references.pmid: 20687083
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 06;(10):CD007717
references.pmid: 20927763
references.citation: J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Dec;17(6):1216-22
references.pmid: 20846317
references.citation: Int J Med Inform. 2010 Nov;79(11):736-71
references.pmid: 20884286