How cost-effective is nutrition care delivered in primary healthcare settings? A systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations

Utilizing technology for diet and exercise change in complex chronic conditions across diverse environments (U-DECIDE): feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Diet and exercise are important components of treatment for complex chronic conditions, however access to allied health support is limited. When available, support is often siloed and fragmented. Digital health incorporating patient choice may help to align health care services with preferences and goals. This study evaluated the implementation of a ubiquitously accessible patient-centred digital health diet and exercise service.

METHODS

U-DECIDE was a single-centre, 26-week randomised controlled trial set in kidney and liver disease clinics in a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Participants were adults with a complex chronic condition referred for dietetic consultation with at least one feature of the metabolic syndrome. All participants received a dietary consultation, an activity monitor and usual care. Intervention participants were offered one text message per week and access to additional digital health options (increased text message frequency, nutrition app, exercise app, group-based diet and/or exercise video consultations). The primary outcome of feasibility was determined by safety (study-related serious adverse events: SRSAEs), recruitment (≥ 50% eligible patients), retention (≥ 70%), exposure uptake (≥ 75% of intervention group had greater access to health professional contact than comparator) and video consultation adherence (≥ 80% attendance). Secondary outcomes included process evaluation metrics and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 67 participants (intervention n = 33, comparator n = 34), 37 (55%) were men, median (IQR) age was 51 (41-58) years. The most chosen digital health options were the nutrition app (n = 29, 88%) and exercise video consultations (n = 26, 79%). Only one participant chose no additional digital health options. The intervention group had no SRSAEs. The study exceeded targets for recruitment (52%), retention (81%) and exposure uptake (94%). Video consultation adherence was 42%. Engagement across digital health options was inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital health options incorporating patient choice were feasible and can be offered to people with complex chronic disease as a service model option.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Trials Register: Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620001282976. Registered 27th November 2020.

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.