(1) Background: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two follow-up methods (face-to-face and telemedicine) used in dermatology in the last ten years. (2) ...Methods: A search for articles that included economic analyses was conducted in August 2021 in the databases PubMed, Medline, Scielo and Scopus using the following keywords: "Cost-Benefit Analysis", "Dermatology", "Telemedicine", "Primary Health Care", as well as other search terms and following the PICOS eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Three clinical trials and five observational studies were analyzed, providing information for approximately 16,539 patients (including four cost-minimization or saving analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and one cost-utility analysis) in Europe and the United States. They describe the follow-up procedures in each of the cases and measure and analyze the direct and indirect costs and effectiveness. All the articles indicate that teledermatology lowers costs and proves satisfactory to both patients and professionals. (4) Conclusions: Although it has been found that follow-up via teledermatology can be more efficient than traditional hospital follow-up, more work is needed to establish evaluation protocols and procedures that measure key variables more equally and demonstrate the quality of the evidence of said studies.
The purpose of this study was to analyse the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients followed up using a remote device-monitoring system (TM) compared to patients followed up through ...standard outpatient visits (HM), 12 months after the implantation of a pacemaker. This was a trial design that used the EuroQol-5D Questionnaire and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF). The HRQoL of a cohort of 50 consecutive patients randomly allocated to one of the two follow-up modalities was measured at baseline and then during follow-up, 12 months after the pacemaker implantation. Eventually, 23 patients were followed-up through standard outpatient visits, while 23 used a remote monitoring system. Results: The baseline clinical characteristics and health-related quality of life of the patients from both groups were observed to be statistically similar. Twelve months after the pacemaker implantation, both groups showed statistically significant improvements in the baseline parameters based on the MLHF. The patients followed up through hospital visits showed a greater increase in MLHF-HRQoL after 12 months, although the increase was not significantly greater than that of the TM group. Furthermore, the frequencies of emergency visits and re-hospitalisations did not differ between the groups.
The concept of 'patient experience' has become central to how to improve healthcare. Remote communication with patients is today a frequent practice in healthcare services, showing similar outcomes ...to standard outpatient care while enabling cost reduction in both formal and informal care. The purpose of this study was to analyse the experiences of people with telemonitoring pacemakers.
Patients were randomly allocated to either the telemonitoring or hospital monitoring follow-ups. Using the 'Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire' (GS-PEQ), as well as an ad-hoc survey from the 'telehealth patient satisfaction survey' and 'costs survey', patients' experiences were measured six months after the pacemaker implant in a cohort of 50 consecutive patients. The mean age was 74.8 (± 11.75) years and 26 (52%) patients were male of which 1 was lost in follow-up. Finally, 24 patients were followed up with standard hospital monitoring, while 25 used the telemonitoring system. Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were not found.
Findings showed overall positive and similar experiences in patients living with telemonitoring and hospital monitoring pacemakers. Significant differences were found in GS-PEQ concerning how telemonitoring patients received less information about their diagnosis/afflictions (p = 0.046). We did not find significant differences in other items such as 'confidence in the clinicians' professional skills', 'treatment perception adapted to their situation', 'involvement in decisions regarding the treatment', 'perception of hospital organisation', 'waiting before admission', 'satisfaction of help and treatment received', 'benefit received', and 'incorrect treatment'.
The remote communication of pacemakers was met with positive levels of patients' experiences similarly to patients in the hospital monitoring follow-up. However, telemonitoring patients received less information. Thus, improving the quality and timing of information is required in telemonitoring patients in the planning and organisation of future remote communication healthcare services for people living with a pacemaker implant.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Aims
The purpose of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the remote monitoring (RM) of older adults with pacemakers on health‐related quality of life, functional capacity, ...feasibility, reliability and safety.
Methods
The PONIENTE study is a controlled, non‐randomized, non‐blinded clinical trial, with data collection carried out during the pre‐implant stage and after 12 months. Between October of 2012 and November of 2013, 82 patients were assigned to either a remote monitoring group (n = 30) or a conventional hospital monitoring (HM) group (n = 52). The EuroQol‐5D (EQ‐5D) and the Duke Activity Status Index were used to measure health‐related quality of life and functional capacity, respectively. Baseline characteristics and number of hospital visits were also analyzed.
Results
The baseline characteristics of the two study groups were similar for both the EQ‐5D (RM 0.74, HM 0.67; P = 0.404) and the Duke Activity Status Index (RM 21.42, HM 19.95; P = 0.272). At the 12‐month follow up, the EQ‐5D utility score was improved for both groups (RM 0.91, HM 0.81; P = 0.154), unlike the EQ‐5D Visual Analog Scale (P = 0.043). The Duke Activity Status Index score was similar to the baseline score. The number of in‐hospital visits was 27% lower (3 vs 4; P < 0.001) in the remote group as compared with the hospital group.
Conclusions
The PONIENTE trial suggests that the remote monitoring of pacemakers in older adults is an equivalent option to hospital monitoring, in terms of health‐related quality of life and functional capacity. Furthermore, it allows for the early detection of clinical and pacemaker‐related adverse events, and significantly reduces the number of in‐hospital visits. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 1188–1195.
The aim of our study was to perform an economic assessment in order to check whether or not telemonitoring of users with pacemakers offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional follow-up in ...outpatient clinics.
We used effectiveness and cost data from the NORDLAND trial, which is a controlled, randomized, non-masked clinical trial. Fifty patients were assigned to receive either telemonitoring (TM; n = 25) or conventional monitoring (CM; n = 25) and were followed up for 12 months after the implantation. A cost-utility analysis was performed in terms of additional costs per additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) attained from the perspectives of the Norwegian National Healthcare System and patients and their caregivers.
Effectiveness was similar between alternatives (TM: 0.7804 CI: 0.6864 to 0.8745 vs. CM: 0.7465 CI: 0.6543 to 0.8387), while cost per patient was higher in the RM group, both from the Norwegian NHS perspective (TM: €2,079.84 CI: 0.00 to 4,610.58 vs. €271.97 CI: 158.18 to 385.76; p = 0.147) and including the patient/family perspective (TM: €2,295.91 CI: 0.00 to 4,843.28 vs. CM: €430.39 CI: 0.00 to 4,841.48), although these large differences-mainly due to a few patients being hospitalized in the TM group, as opposed to none in the CM group-did not reach statistical significance. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) from the Norwegian NHS perspective (€53,345.27/QALY) and including the patient/caregiver perspective (€55,046.40/QALY), as well as the Incremental Net Benefit (INB), favors the CM alternative, albeit with very broad 95%CIs. The probabilistic analysis confirmed inconclusive results due to the wide CIs even suggesting that TM was not cost-effective in this study. Supplemental analysis excluding the hospitalization costs shows positive INBs, whereby suggesting a discrete superiority of the RM alternative if hospitalization costs were not considered, albeit also with broad CIs.
Cost-utility analysis of TM vs. CM shows inconclusive results because of broad confidence intervals with ICER and INB figures ranging from potential savings to high costs for an additional QALY, with the majority of ICERs being above the usual NHS thresholds for coverage decisions.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02237404.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Patients with pacemakers need regular follow-ups which are demanding. Telemonitoring for pacemaker can provide a new opportunity to avoid follow-up visits. On the other hand, in-person visits could ...help patients with pacemakers to cope better with the anxiety linked to their condition and maintain better communication with their doctors than simple remote control of their device status. Therefore, our objective was to analyze the experiences and communication comparing telemonitoring (TM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) of patients with pacemakers. A single-center, controlled, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was designed. Data were collected five years after implantation in a cohort of 89 consecutive patients assigned to two different groups: TM and CM. The 'Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire' (GS-PEQ) was used to assess patients' experiences, and the Healthcare Communication Questionnaire (HCCQ) was used to measure the communication of patients with healthcare professionals. Additionally, an ad-hoc survey including items from the 'Telehealth Patient Satisfaction Survey' and a 'costs survey' was used. After five years, 55 patients completed the study (TM = 21; CM = 34). Participants' mean (±SD) age was 81 (±6.47), and 31% were females. No differences in baseline characteristics between groups were found. The comparative analyses TM versus CM showed some significant differences. According to GS-PEQ, TM users received adequate information about their diagnosis or afflictions (p = .035) and the treatment was better adapted to their situation (p = .009). Both groups reported negative experiences regarding their involvement in their treatment decisions, the waiting time before admission, and perceived a low-benefit. According to HCCQ, the TM group experienced poorer consultation management by the healthcare provider (p = .041). Participants reported positive overall communication experiences. The study provides insights into the experiences and communication in PM monitoring services as well as specific areas where users reported negative experiences such as the consultation management by clinicians. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02234245.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional capacity values immediately after pacemaker (PM) implantation have been well established; however, not much has been known about its long-term ...effects. The present study compared the long-term effectiveness and safety of remote monitoring plus a clinic visit versus clinic visits alone during follow-up of adults implanted with PMs. This study was a single-centre, controlled, non-randomised, non-blinded clinical trial. Data were collected pre-implantation and after 60 months. The patients in the PONIENTE study were assigned to two different groups: remote monitoring (RM) and conventional monitoring (CM). The EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire was used to assess HRQoL and Duke Activity Status Index was used for the functional capacity. After five years, 55 patients completed the study (RM = 21; CM = 34). EuroQol-5D and functional capacity values were improved; however, significant differences were observed only in the EQ5D visual analogue scale (
< 0.001). Remote monitoring was equally feasible, reliable, safe, and clinically useful as CM. The frequencies of rehospitalisations and emergency visits did not differ between the groups. RM was found to be safe and effective in early detection and treatment of medical- and device-related events and in reducing hospital visits. Improved HRQoL was described not only immediately after PM implantation but also extended over a long time.
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to assess the burden borne by and the costs to informal caregivers of patients with remotely monitored (RM) pacemakers.
Methods
The PONIENTE study was a ...controlled, non-randomised clinical trial, with data collected from informal caregivers, 12 months after implantation of pacemakers. The survey on disabilities, personal autonomy, and dependency situations was used to gather information on demographic and social characteristics, levels of professionalism, time and types of care, difficulties in providing care, health status, professional aspects, economic and family or leisure impacts due to informal caregiving for patients with pacemakers.
Results
During 14 months, 76 caregivers were enrolled in the PONIENTE trial. Of which, 26 were included in the RM group and 50 in the hospital-monitored group (HM). The mean ages were 58.62 ± 16.51 and 61.10 ± 12.67 years, respectively (
p
= 0.56) in the groups, and 69.7 % were females. The majority (96.1 %) of the caregivers declared that they had to provide their services between 6 and 7 days per week (88.5 % in RM group versus 100 % in HM group;
p
= 0.037). The costs related to care provided by the informal caregivers were 21.38 % lower in the RM group than in the HM group (
p
= 0.033).
Conclusions
The PONIENTE study shows a significant impact of informal care on relatives and friends of patients with pacemakers in terms of their well-being and costs.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02234245.
PDF
