Evidence mapPaperPMID 38530596Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2024

Developing a Program Costs Checklist of Digital Health Interventions: A Scoping Review and Empirical Case Study.

Zareen Abbas Khan, Kristian Kidholm, Sindre Andre Pedersen, Silje Marie Haga, Filip Drozd, Thea Sundrehagen, Ellen Olavesen, Vidar Halsteinli

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Challenges in the future of cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Zareen Abbas KhanCenter for Health Care Improvement, St. Olav Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, 3250, Torgarden, 7006, Trondheim, Norway. zareen.abbas.khan@stolav.no.ORCID 0000-0001-8522-3534
Kristian KidholmCenter for Innovative Medical Technology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Sindre Andre PedersenFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Silje Marie HagaRegional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Filip DrozdRegional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Thea SundrehagenRegional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Ellen OlavesenRegional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Vidar HalsteinliCenter for Health Care Improvement, St. Olav Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, 3250, Torgarden, 7006, Trondheim, Norway.
Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSt Olav's University Hospital · NOUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 309264
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe rate of development and complexity of digital health interventions (DHIs) in recent years has to some extent outpaced the methodological development in economic evaluation and costing. Particularly, the choice of cost components included in intervention or program costs of DHIs have received scant attention. The aim of this study was to build a literature-informed checklist of program cost components of DHIs. The checklist was next tested by applying it to an empirical case, Mamma Mia, a DHI developed to prevent perinatal depression.

methodA scoping review with a structured literature search identified peer-reviewed literature from 2010 to 2022 that offers guidance on program costs of DHIs. Relevant guidance was summarized and extracted elements were organized into categories of main cost components and their associated activities following the standard three-step approach, that is, activities, resource use and unit costs.

resultsOf the 3448 records reviewed, 12 studies met the criteria for data extraction. The main cost categories identified were development, research, maintenance, implementation and health personnel involvement (HPI). Costs are largely considered to be context-specific, may decrease as the DHI matures and vary with number of users. The five categories and their associated activities constitute the checklist. This was applied to estimate program costs per user for Mamma Mia Self-Guided and Blended, the latter including additional guidance from public health nurses during standard maternal check-ups. Excluding research, the program cost per mother was more than double for Blended compared with Self-Guided (€140.5 versus €56.6, 2022 Euros) due to increased implementation and HPI costs. Including research increased the program costs to €190.8 and €106.9, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed sensitivity to changes in number of users, lifespan of the app, salaries and license fee.

conclusionThe checklist can help increase transparency of cost calculation and improve future comparison across studies.

Indexed as

ChecklistCost-Benefit AnalysisDigital HealthFemaleHumansPregnancyTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38530596
PMCPMC11126496
OpenAlexW4393196621

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.