This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Wearables and MHealth Reviews (310) mHealth for Telemedicine and Homecare (531) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (2088) mHealth for Symptom and Disease Monitoring, Chronic Disease Management (1732) Patient Generated Health Data (17) Health Services Research and Health Care Utilization in Older Patients (138) Clinical Communication, Electronic Consultation and Telehealth (758) mHealth for Data Collection and Research (1196)

Published on in Vol 13 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/68464, first published .
Effects of Remote Patient Monitoring on Health Care Utilization in Patients With Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effects of Remote Patient Monitoring on Health Care Utilization in Patients With Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effects of Remote Patient Monitoring on Health Care Utilization in Patients With Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors of this article:

Geir Smedslund1 Author Orcid Image ;   Nina Østerås1 Author Orcid Image ;   Christine Hillestad Hestevik1, 2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Review

    1Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    2Health and Social Care Interventions, Division of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

    Corresponding Author:

    Geir Smedslund, PhD

    Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY)

    Diakonhjemmet Hospital

    Postboks 23 Vinderen

    Oslo, 0319

    Norway

    Phone: 47 2245 4862

    Email: geir.smedslund@dmp.no


    Background: Management of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) is an increasing challenge for health care systems. Although remote patient monitoring presents a promising solution by utilizing technology to monitor patients outside clinical settings, there is a lack of knowledge about the effect on resource utilization.

    Objective: This systematic review aimed to review the effects of remote patient monitoring on health care resource utilization by patients with NCDs.

    Methods: Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involved digital transmission of health data from patients to health care personnel. Outcomes included hospitalizations, length of stay, outpatient visits, and emergency visits. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in June 2024. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened individually by 2 authors. Risk of bias was assessed, and data were extracted, analyzed, and pooled in meta-analysis when possible. Confidence in the estimates was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

    Results: We included 40 RCTs published between 2017 and 2024. The largest group of NCDs was cardiovascular disease (16 studies). Remote patient monitoring may slightly decrease the proportion of hospitalizations compared with usual care (risk ratio [RR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; low certainty). Compared with usual care, remote patient monitoring had fewer or an equal number of hospitalizations (mean difference –0.13, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.03; low certainty). Hospital length of stay may be slightly reduced with remote patient monitoring compared with usual care (mean difference –0.84, 95% CI –1.61 to –0.06 days; low certainty). The proportion of outpatient visits showed probably little to no difference between remote patient monitoring and usual care (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02; moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, remote patient monitoring had slightly more outpatient visits, but the CI was wide (mean difference 0.41, 95% CI –0.22 to 1.03; low certainty). The results indicate a small or no difference between remote patient monitoring and usual care regarding proportion of emergency visits (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; low certainty). We are uncertain whether remote patient monitoring increases or decreases the number of emergency visits, as the evidence was of very low certainty.

    Conclusions: This systematic review showed that remote patient monitoring possibly led to lower proportions of patients being hospitalized, fewer hospitalizations, and shorter hospital length of stay compared with usual care. Patients undergoing remote monitoring had possibly more outpatient visits compared with usual care. The proportions of patients with outpatient visits or emergency visits were probably similar. Finally, we had very low certainty in the number of emergency visits. The results should be considered with caution as the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. We did not find results regarding institutional stay.

    JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2025;13:e68464

    doi:10.2196/68464

    Keywords

    remote patient monitoring; health care resource utilization; noncommunicable diseases; systematic review; hospitalizations; outpatient visits; remote consultation; chronic disease; patient monitoring; length of stay; emergency service; hospital 


    Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and mental health conditions lead to widespread human suffering globally and impose a high burden on health care systems, both financially and structurally [1,2]. More than 70% of all deaths globally are caused by NCDs, and cardiovascular disease accounts for most of the deaths [3]. The already substantial societal costs of NCDs are expected to rise even further in the years to come [4]. NCDs contribute to reduced productivity, shortened working lives, and premature mortality, with estimates suggesting a cumulative global loss of between US $30 trillion and US $47 trillion in economic output between 2011 and 2030 [5]. Furthermore, NCDs lead to high treatment costs, imposing a direct economic burden on health systems [1,6].

    The follow-up of these individuals is resource-intensive and requires a high degree of interdisciplinary and holistic care over time. This leads to increased demands on both capacity and competence in health care services, as these patients often need both continuous monitoring and acute interventions [1,2]. As a result, there is significant interest in exploring and testing new care models aimed at extending the services to patients’ homes through innovative technologies, which may contribute to preventing avoidable use of health care resources [7-9]. Welfare technology is highlighted as an important element in the development of the health and care sector [9].

    Among these technologies, remote patient monitoring presents significant opportunities to improve the timeliness of care, enhance health outcomes, and potentially reduce unnecessary use of health care resources [9,10]. Remote patient monitoring utilizes technological tools to track patients’ health status outside of typical clinical settings, including patients’ homes or other remote locations. This method involves sending health data directly to health care providers via automated electronic systems or web- and phone-based interfaces, facilitating timely interventions if health status deteriorates [11,12].

    This process ensures that health care providers can respond rapidly and potentially prevent hospitalizations. Unlike traditional calendar-based hospital follow-up appointments, remote monitoring enables customized treatment plans tailored to each patient's specific needs and disease activity [11,12]. Routine monitoring of patient’s health data and receiving alerts when measurements surpass a predetermined threshold can enable health care providers to intervene promptly. This approach offers potential advantages for both individuals and society by lessening the burden on patients and decreasing the need for unnecessary medical visits [10,13].

    Moreover, the use of welfare technology hopefully can free up resources within health care services, allowing them to be allocated more effectively to patients with greater needs. However, findings from studies examining patients’ utilization of health care services with remote patient monitoring compared with usual care have shown mixed results [14]. Therefore, we lack definitive knowledge about the effect of remote monitoring on resource utilization. [14] The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effects of remote patient monitoring on health care resource utilization for individuals with NCDs, compared with usual care. The protocol for this review was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42023431366) on June 19, 2023. This review is an update of a previous review [15] published in Norwegian with the key messages and executive summary provided in English.


    We conducted a systematic review according to the guidelines described in the Cochrane handbook [16] and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [17]. The completed PRISMA checklist is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Selection Criteria

    Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of remote monitoring of patients with NCDs (including chronic pulmonary diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, mental health disorders, and comorbidities) on health care utilization, compared with usual care, published in English or a Scandinavian language.

    The interventions had to involve digital transmission of health data from the patient to health care personnel, who would then contact the patient and provide medical support and guidance if the measurements indicated signs of deterioration or fell outside normal values. We also included studies that incorporated additional components alongside remote patient monitoring, such as rehabilitation guidance, exercise prescriptions, and other forms of support.

    Studies involving digital follow-up without any element of self-reporting, such as implants that transmit data automatically, were excluded.

    Given the rapid advancements in digital health technologies, including remote monitoring tools, software platforms, and communication infrastructure, we prioritized newer studies to ensure the findings reflected current clinical practice and technological capabilities. Older studies may be based on outdated technologies or care models that no longer represent the current standard of care, potentially limiting the applicability and relevance of their results. Hence, only studies published from 2017 and onwards with interventions conducted in 2013 or later (within the last 10 years at the time of our first systematic search) were included.

    The studies had to report one or more of the following outcomes: hospitalizations (proportions or numbers), length of hospital stay, outpatient consultations (proportions or numbers), use of emergency services (proportions or numbers), visits to general practitioners, use of home health care services, and use of institutional stay.

    Search Strategy

    A librarian developed a search strategy corresponding to the inclusion criteria and searched the following databases: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley). Searches were conducted in 3 rounds: April 2022, May 2023, and June 2024 (Multimedia Appendix 2).

    Inclusion Process

    The authors independently screened the references identified in the previous review and the updated searches. We utilized the “priority screening” function in EPPI-Reviewer [18] to enhance the efficiency of screening titles and abstracts. This machine learning feature identifies the characteristics of included and excluded studies and predicts the likelihood of relevance for each reference. Priority screening prioritizes relevant records at the beginning of the screening process and relegates irrelevant records toward the end. Two authors (GS and CHH) independently screened the titles and abstracts to determine their eligibility according to our inclusion criteria. Disagreements were solved through discussion. We decided to stop screening after assessing 400 titles and abstracts in a row without including any additional references, as the inclusion rate had plateaued, suggesting that the algorithm had already identified all relevant studies

    Subsequently, we obtained the full texts of references deemed relevant. In pairs, the authors (GS, CHH, NØ) then independently reviewed these full texts and made a final assessment to determine which studies to include. Disagreements were solved through consensus.

    Risk of Bias

    Two authors (CHH and GS) independently assessed risk of bias for each outcome with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) for randomized trials [19]. Disagreements were solved through discussion. RoB 2 assesses risk of bias within 5 domains: randomization process, deviations from the intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Overall risk of bias for each outcome was classified as low risk, some concerns, or high risk based on the domain with the highest risk of bias.

    Data Extraction

    One author (GS) extracted data from the included studies, and another (CHH or NØ) checked the data against the publication. We extracted the following data: study and participant characteristics, information about the interventions, observation period, and outcomes related to resource use. These outcomes included hospitalizations (including readmissions), length of hospital stay, and number of outpatient visits (including clinic visits, outpatient visits, and medical consultations with private physicians and general practitioners), and emergency services. In case of missing information, we contacted the study authors.

    Statistical Analysis

    We conducted meta-analyses combining studies reporting on the same outcome in RevMan Web [20]. Some of the effect sizes were transformed, as the original data were not reported in a format ready for effect size calculation. For dichotomous outcomes (proportion hospitalized, proportion of outpatient visits, proportion with emergency visits) we performed random-effects analyses with the risk ratio (RR) as the measure of relative effect. For continuous outcomes (number of hospitalizations, hospital length of stay, number of outpatient visits, number of emergency visits) we performed random-effects analyses with the mean difference as the measure of relative effect. A decision taken after the protocol was published was to add results of absolute effects on all outcomes to enhance interpretability and clinical relevance. We believe this can reduce the risk of misinterpreting large relative effects with low absolute benefit and facilitate meaningful comparisons and meta-analyses across studies with varying baseline risks

    We did not plan any subgroup analyses or meta-regression in the protocol, but we did the following post hoc analyses: If there were 2 or more studies with the same NCD for an outcome, we subgrouped the meta-analysis per disease group. If there were 10 or more studies in a meta-analysis, we performed mixed effects meta-regression using the R-package [metafor] [21]. Explanatory variables were mean age and publication year. In addition, if there were 10 or more studies in a meta-analysis, we produced funnel plots and performed the Egger test in R [metafor].

    Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

    We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [22] to assess our certainty of the effect estimates per outcome within the following 5 domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. The GRADE approach specifies 4 levels of certainty: high, moderate, low, or very low. Table 1 illustrates how the certainty of the evidence and the importance of the outcome influence the description of the direction and size of an intervention’s effect.

    Table 1. How certainty of the evidence and importance of the outcome influence the description of an intervention’s effect, as described in [23].
    Level of certaintyImportant benefit or harmLess important benefit or harmNo important benefit or harm or null effect
    High certaintyIncreases or decreasesIncreases or decreases slightlyLittle to no difference
    Moderate certaintyProbably increases or decreasesProbably increases or decreases slightlyProbably little to no difference
    Low certaintyMay increase or decreaseMay increase or decrease slightlyMay make little to no difference
    Very low certaintyUncertain whether intervention increases or decreases outcomeUncertain whether intervention increases or decreases outcomeUncertain whether intervention increases or decreases outcome

    Included Studies

    We identified 23,562 unique references in the literature search, of which 258 studies were evaluated in full text. In total, 218 of these studies were excluded for the following reasons: wrong study design (n=90), wrong intervention (n=54), wrong outcomes (n=48), observation period before 2013 (n=16), wrong target group (n=8), and wrong language (n=2; Figure 1).

    We included 40 studies [24-62] published between 2017 and 2024 (Tables 2 and 3).

    The studies were distributed across various countries, mainly representing high-income countries, with the highest number conducted in the United States and Denmark (Table 2).

    The most frequently reported outcomes were proportion of hospitalized patients (including readmissions), proportion with emergency visits, and length of hospital stay.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Flowchart of study selection process.
    Table 2. Key characteristics of included studies (N=40).
    CharacteristicDetails
    Total participants, n (range in individual studies)11,617 (31-1225)
    Female participants (N=11,617), n (%)4888 (42)
    Studies with mean age ≥50 years, n (%)32 (80)
    Chronic conditions,n(%) of studies

    		Cardiovascular disease16 (40)

    		Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease8 (20)

    		Cancer5 (13)

    		Multiple chronic conditions4 (10)

    		Mental illness3 (8)

    		Cystic fibrosis2 (5)

    		Diabetes mellitus2 (5)
    Countries represented, n (%) of studies

    		United States5 (13)

    		Denmark5 (13)

    		Canada4 (10)

    		Spain3 (8)

    		Australia3 (8)

    		United Kingdom2 (5)

    		Poland2 (5)

    		Japan2 (5)

    		Netherlands1 (3)

    		Norway1 (3)

    		Germany1 (3)

    		Colombia1 (3)

    		China1 (3)

    		New Zealand1 (3)

    		France1 (3)

    		Russia1 (3)

    		Singapore1 (3)

    		Korea1 (3)

    		Brazil1 (3)

    		Argentina1 (3)

    		Hong Kong1 (3)

    		Multinational1 (3)
    Table 3. Study characteristics (N=40).
    First author (year)/countryName of trial or program (app)Sample size, nDiagnosesAge (years), mean (SD)Women, %InterventionRelevant outcomesFollow-up
    Abelsen (2022)/Norway [63,64]NRa538Chronic diseases (COPDb, T2DMc, HFd, cancer, mental illness)69.749.0Tablet for patients to answer simple questions about their health or to monitor measurements related to health status (such as BPe, blood glucose, oxygen saturation, or weight); automatic transfer of measurements from the home telemonitoring devices to the patient’s tablet and follow-up centerNumber of hospitalizations, length of hospital stay, use of acute services, outpatient visits and home care services6 and 12 months
    Absolom (2021)/England [24]App: eRAPID 508Colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers56.0 (11.8)79.9An online eHealth system for patients to self‐report symptoms during cancer treatment; provision of automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contactProportion hospitalized and proportion with emergency visits6, 12, and 18 weeks
    Achury-Saldana (2024)/Colombia [25] App: ControlVit 175HF66 (11.9)28.6Daily (weight, arterial pressure, HRf, and symptoms) questionnaire; alerts when an increase in weight or change in HR or arterial pressure was detectedProportion hospitalized6 months
    Ackermann (2021)/Australia [26]  Trial: MEL-SELF pilot study; app: ASICAg Skin-Checker app 100Localized melanoma58.7 (12.0)46Usual care plus patient-led surveillance with instructional videos on how to perform SSEh, reminders to undertake SSE, a mobile dermatoscope attached to their smartphone, and an app that facilitated store-and-forward teledermatology and fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visitsNumber of outpatient visits6 months
    Agarwal (2019)/Canada [27]  App: BlueStar 240T2DM51.8 (10.7)48.0Information related to T2DM management entered into the app by patients who received customized, evidence-based messages to impact motivation, behavior, and education; the transfer of health data to the user’s clinician also facilitated by the app Proportion hospitalized and proportion with outpatient and emergency visits3 and 6 months
    Alshahrani (2024)/UK [28]Trial: Tele-ACS study 337Acute coronary syndrome58.113.912-lead ECGi belt with automatic monitoring of BP and pulse oximeter; remote consultation with clinicianLength of hospital stay and proportion with emergency visits6 months
    Andersen (2023)/Denmark [29]NR 222COPD70 (64-76)j61Home measurement of oxygen saturation, HR, peak expiratory flow, body weight, and a questionnaire on dyspnea, cough, sputum volume, and color; results sent to a server with green, yellow, and red alertsProportion hospitalized, and length of hospital stay6 and 24 months
    Angermann (2023)/Germany [30] Trial: randomized INHk trial 715Acute systolic HF70 (60-78)j29Structured telephone monitoring based on patient-recorded vital signs and a 19-item standardized questionnaire addressing factors such as adverse events since previous contact, medication adherence, and satisfaction with remote patient monitoringProportion hospitalized18 and 60 months
    Benzo (2022)/US [31]NR 375COPD69.0 (9.5)56.5Weekly HCl calls and a remote monitoring system that had a computer tablet, an activity monitor, and an oximeter; tablet-gathered data transmitted to an online patient portal to monitor compliance with the rehabilitation routine and daily physical activity; aim of weekly HC call to be a behavior change intervention supported by the motivational interviewing and self-efficacy theoriesProportion hospitalized and with emergency visits3 months
    Broadbent (2018)/New Zealand [32]App: iRobi robot 60COPD69.8 (10.1)61.5Robot provided to patients at home programmed to deliver COPD management consisting of several components guided by a clinical pathway; overall program designed to monitor health and prompt medical contact if health was deterioratingProportion hospitalized and hospital length of stay4 months
    Dorsch (2021)/US [33]App: ManageHF4Life 83Left ventricular ejection fraction61.1 (9.0)35.0Self-monitoring with a mobile app, along with a Fitbit physical activity monitor and scaleProportion hospitalized12 weeks
    Faurholt-Jepsen (2021)/Denmark [34]Trial: RADMIS; app: Monsenso system smartphone app 98Bipolar disorder42.7 (13.5)25.6Daily self-monitoring of mood, level of activity, duration of sleep, and medication intake; collected smartphone data on a webpage regularly examined by study nurses who, based on the patients’ needs and collected data, contacted the patients and gave adviceProportion hospitalized and duration of psychiatric readmissions3 and 6 months
    Franz (2022)/US [35] Trial: eICEm study 267Cystic fibrosis28.8% <18 years50.9Symptoms measured by patients using the CFRSDn twice per week; study sites automatically alerted if a participant’s FEV1o fell below baseline >10% or if CFRSD worsened in ≥2 of 8 respiratory symptomsProportion hospitalized, length of hospital stay, and number of outpatient and emergency visits per participant per year of follow-up 12 months
    Galinier (2020)/France [36]Trial: OSICAT 937Acute HF69.9 (12.4)27.8Telemonitoring program with 2 elements: electronic devices and a personalized educational component; telemonitoring group: identical set of electronic scales to measure body weight and a device to answer 8 symptom questions provided to each participant; measurement of body weight and recording of HF symptoms communicated daily to a secure server and analyzed automatically by an expert system that generated alerts, as necessary, with the aim of predicting episodes of cardiac decompensation Proportion hospitalized and hospital length of stay18 months
    Garanin (2022)/Russia [37]App: INME-01 tonometer 392HF and acute coronary syndrome66.3 (47.9)49.4Monitoring carried out with the certified INME-01 tonometer with an integrated GSMp module that allows BP and pulse rate measurements and ability to transmit results via a cellular communication channel to a research center; based on the results of the received data, doctor able to contact the patient and adjust the previously prescribed treatmentProportion hospitalized and length of hospital stay3 months
    Gomis-Pastor (2023)/Spain [38]  App: mHeart 134Heart transplant45 (16)31Multifaceted theory-based interventions provided during the study period to optimize therapy management using a mobile appProportion hospitalized and proportion with outpatient and emergency visits6 and 12 months
    Greer (2020)/US [39]NR 181 (randomized)Cancer53.3 (12.9)53.6Smartphone mobile app with medication plan, reminders, symptom-reporting module, patient education, and Fitbit integration for tracking physical activity; used for 12 weeksNumber of hospitalizations and emergency visits12 weeks
    Hernandez-Quiles (2024)/Spain [40]TELECARE 510Advanced heart and lung disease76 (14)54.5Monitoring of biological and medical questionnaires available in real time for the health care team; alarm routines Proportion hospitalized, length of hospital stay, and proportion and number with emergency visits45, 90, and 180 days
    Indraratna (2022)/Australia [41]   App: TCCq smartphone app 164Acute coronary syndrome or HF61.5 (12.5)21.0Smartphone app with Bluetooth-enabled devices for daily monitoring of weight, BP, and physical activity, along with educational push notifications Proportion hospitalized30 days
    Jiang (2022)/Singapore 
    [43]    		App: NSSMPr114T2DM52.8 (11.0)30.06-month NSSMP consisting of an education session and a smartphone app for self-monitoring and recording of blood glucose, diet, and exerciseNumber of hospitalizations and number of outpatient and emergency visits6 months
    Jiang (2024)/China [42]NR 148COPD with hypercapnic chronic respiratory failure72.7 (6.79)14.2Internet of Things–based management based on telemonitoring of clinical and ventilator parameters for 12 monthsNumber with readmission12 months
    Krzesinski (2021)/Poland [44]Trial: AMULET 605HF and left ventricular ejection fraction67 (14)s21Nurse-led noninvasive assessments supporting remote therapeutic decisions for patients after an episode of acute HF, including vital sign monitoring, assessments of HF symptoms, and physician recommendationsProportion hospitalized12 months
    Laursen (2021)/Denmark [45]Trial: ENTER; app: mDiary 78Borderline personality disorder26.8 (18.1)87.0Mobile diary app: psychoeducational material (dialectical behavior therapy) and visualizations of participant’s data; recording of symptom information (eg, emotional dysregulation and thoughts of suicide and self-harm) by participants so health care professionals could follow them in real time and use the registrations in the treatmentProportion hospitalized and number of outpatient visits1 month
    Lee (2023)/Korea [46]App: PRO‑CTCAE 222Breast, lung, head and neck, esophageal, or gynecologic cancer55.9 (9.7)60.5Completed symptom questionnaire every 7 days for 8 weeks; data accessible by clinicians using a web dashboardProportion hospitalized and proportion with outpatient and emergency visits (at least once)2 months
    Mizukawa (2019)/Japan [47]NR 39HF72.4 (12.7)48.73 arms: telemonitoring (collaborative management), self-management education, and usual care; all involved self-monitoring weight, BP, and pulse; 12-month disease management program also part of intervention groups; telemonitoring group: noninvasive physiologic telemonitoring devices to measure BP, pulse rate, and body weight for 12 months and data transmitted to the nurse’s computer; self-management group: described as “self-management” Proportion hospitalized and length of hospital stay24 months
    Piotrowicz (2020)/Poland [48]Trial: TELEREH-HF trial/CardioMessenger transmitter of the CareLink network, or erlin@home wireless transmitter 850HF62.4 (10.5)11.4Hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation: supervised exercise training monitored with tele-ECG; monitoring of BP and body weightProportion hospitalized9 weeks
    Rohde (2024)/Brazil [49]Trial: MESSAGE-HF study; app: Clever Care 699HF (with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [<40%])61.2 (14.5)34.2Telemonitoring group: 4 daily short text messages to optimize self-care, active engagement, and early intervention; red flags based on feedback messages triggering automatic diuretic adjustment and/or telephone call from the health care teamProportion hospitalized and with emergency visits180 days
    Shimoyama (2023)/Japan [50]Trial: Telenursing system (COMPAS) 31Chronic respiratory failure73.0 (10.2)40Once a day, questions answered by each participant from a list of options; data on physical condition, including vital signs, respiratory symptoms, food intake, excretion, medication use, physical symptoms other than respiratory symptoms, and questions to the medical staff sent to the server and collected; transmitted data monitored remotely, and nursing support determined based on the results of each question item set in advanced consultation with the physician in chargeNumber of hospitalizations and length of hospital stay3 months
    Soriano (2018)/Spain [51]Trial: PROMETE II 229COPD71.4 (8.4)19.6A pulse oximeter, BP gauge, spirometer, and respiratory rate and oxygen therapy compliance monitor connected to a modem that uploaded readings to secure servers—performed daily for 12 months; alerts automatically triggered when measurements were exceeding thresholds or missingProportion hospitalized and length of hospital stay12 months
    Stamenova (2020)/Canada [52]   App: Cloud DX Connected Health Kit 81COPD72.4 (9.3)46.0Cloud DX Connected Health Kit: custom tablet computer, Pulse wave wrist cuff monitor (measured BP), oximeter, weighing scale and thermometer; data from all devices transmitted to a database; 3-armed study, including remote patient monitoring group and self-monitoring group: oximetry and BP daily for 6 months; when readings fell outside predetermined thresholds, clinical project specialist notified who took appropriate actionNumber of hospitalizations, hospital length of stay, proportion with outpatient visits, and number of emergency visits6 months
    Temple-Oberle (2023)/Canada [53]App: RecoverWell 72Cancer (breast, benign ovarian or uterine mass, endometrial, or cervical)54.90 (11.18)100Data input: drain outputs, surgical site photographs, and QoR15t and EORTCu scales; computer used by trained and designated portal monitor and patient’s surgeon to access the data and monitor patients; any red flags brought to the surgeon’s attention and prompted action either via a telephone call or an in-person appointment depending on the issueProportions with outpatient and emergency visits6 weeks
    Tønning (2020/2021)/Denmark [54]   Trial: RADMIS; app: Monsenso system 120Unipolar depressive disorder43.9 (14.2)52.5Multimodal monitoring and treatment based on a smartphone-based system (Monsenso system); patient monitoring of mood, sleep, and activity daily, and study nurse checking the data 3 times weekly and reacting according to the data presentedProportion hospitalized and length of hospital stay6 monhts
    Wagenaar (2019)/Netherlands [55]App/program: EACPv including “Heartfailurematters.org” website 450HF66.8 (11.0)25.8 3-arm trial: (1) EACP, (2), website heartfailurematters.org, (3) usual care; EACP group: use of the e-Vita platform with telemonitoring of weight, BP, and HR and nurse alerts if values were abnormal; website group encouraged to use the website, information leaflet, and a reminder to use the websiteProportion hospitalized12 months
    Walker (2018)/ Spain, United Kingdom, Slovenia,  Estonia, and Sweden [56]  Trial: CHROMED; app: RESMON PRO DIARY using FOT, a touch-screen computer, and a mobile modem 312COPD71w34.0Monitoring platform used for 9 months; measurements of within-breath respiratory mechanical impedance, BP, oxygen saturation, HR, and body temperature; contact with the study nurse triggered by abnormal valuesProportion hospitalized and length of hospital stay12 months
    Wang (2023/Hong Kong [57]App: telemedicine app and system (HealthCap)49Hypertension59.9 (8.4)53BP readings reported by patients twice daily for a week before their consultation, with data sent to a secure computer; review of results by physicians prior to appointments; and optimal 7-day average BP and no issues, appointment deferred for 3 months; suboptimal readings or presence of symptoms, consultation attendance by patients mandatory, and doctors able to adjust medication according to guidelinesProportion hospitalized and proportion or number with outpatient visits6 months
    Ware (2022)/Canada [58] App: Medly smartphone app 96 T2DM, hypertension, or HF59.0 (12.6)44.0Telemonitoring group: patient measurements of symptoms; alerts to the clinical team via email and a secure web portal when recorded values (weight, BP, blood glucose) exceeded target thresholdsProportion hospitalized, number of hospitalizations, and proportions and numbers of emergency and outpatient visits6 months
    Widmer (2017)/US [59]NR 71Acute coronary syndrome63.0 (10.8)18.6Digital health intervention involving reporting of dietary and exercise habits throughout cardiac rehabilitation and educational information for patients’ healthy lifestyles; patient-entered values in the app for BP, lipids, glucose, or weight that were out of normal range, patients asked to consult their physicianProportion hospitalized and proportion with emergency visits3 and 6 months
    Witt Udsen (2017)/Denmark [60]TeleCare North 1225COPD69.5 (9.4)51.7A tablet at home; information to participants about COPD management and transmission by participants of data on BP, pulse, blood oxygen saturation, and body weight to health personnelNumber of hospitalizations, length of hospital stay, numbers of outpatient and emergency visits, and use of home care services12 months
    Wood (2020)/Australia [61]  NR 60Cystic fibrosis31.0 (9.0)48.7Smartphone app with 14 questions about respiratory symptoms and well-being to be answered weekly or sooner when worsening of symptoms; if symptoms worsened, call from a nurseProportion hospitalized, length of hospital stay, and number of outpatient visits12 months
    Yanicelli (2021)/Argentina [62]NR 30HF52.0 (NR)20.0Home telemonitoring system consisting of an app collecting weight, BP, and HR measurements and symptoms (eg, swelling in ankles, legs, shortness of breath); app-based alert to a physician if measurements are outside normal ranges; also included educational functionalityProportion hospitalized3 months

    aNR: not reported.

    bCOPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    cT2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

    dHF: heart failure.

    eBP: blood pressure.

    fASICA: Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare.

    gHR: heart rate.

    hSSE: skin self‐examination.

    iECG: electrocardiogram.

    jMedian (range).

    kINH: Interdisciplinary Network Heart Failure.

    lHC: health coach.

    meICE: early Intervention in Cystic Fibrosis Exacerbation.

    nCFRSD: Cystic Fibrosis Respiratory Symptom Diary.

    oFEV1: forced expiratory volume in one second.

    pGSM: Global System for Mobile Communications.

    qTCC: TeleClinical Care.

    rNSSMP: nurse-led smartphone-based self-management program.

    sMedian (IQR).

    tQoR15: quality of recovery questionnaire.

    uEORTC: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

    vEACP: eHealth adjusted care pathway.

    wMedian.

    For one study by Abelsen et al [64], we were unable to calculate effect estimates. As a result, the study was not included in the meta-analyses, and we did not assess our confidence in the results. The findings from this study are described narratively. Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the included studies. Some of the trials had specific names, and some utilized a specific app, which are listed in the second column. The interventions were mostly similar, but we provided a detailed description of each. Although the trials had many outcomes, we included only those relevant for this review. Follow-up times ranged from 1 month to 60 months, with 37 studies having follow-up times between 3 months and 12 months (Table 3).

    Risk of Bias

    Of 40 studies, 8 were assessed as having a low risk of bias, 16 had some concerns, and the remaining 16 were assessed as having a high risk of bias. Figure 2 shows a summary of the risk of bias assessments.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Summary risk of bias assessment.

    Effects of Interventions

    Proportion of Hospitalized Patients

    Of the included studies, 30 reported the proportion of hospitalized patients. The RR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; low certainty; Figure 3, Multimedia Appendix 2). There was significant heterogeneity (I2: 55%). Mixed effects meta-regression analysis indicated that newer studies were more in favor of remote patient monitoring (coefficient for publication year: –0.06, P=.008; meaning that, for every increase of 1 publication year, the RR decreased by 0.06.) Mean age did not have a significant effect on proportion hospitalized. When both explanatory variables were entered together (full model), publication year was still significant (coefficient: –0.07, P=.006). In the full model, I2 was 46%. Therefore, there was still some unexplained heterogeneity. The Egger test was not significant (P=.07), not indicating publication bias. In the subgroup of cardiovascular disease (16 studies), the RR was 0.76 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.88). We did not use GRADE for this subgroup result. The only other diagnostic subgroup with more than 2 studies was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 5 studies). The RR was 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.00). For the other subgroups, there were no important differences between remote patient monitoring and usual care.

    ‎
    Figure 3. Meta-analysis of the proportion of hospitalized patients in groups randomized to remote patient monitoring or usual care, with the risk of bias assessments for the outcome shown on the right for each study.

    Laursen et al [45] reported the proportion with hospitalizations, but it was only reported as <5. Therefore, this could not be included in the meta-analysis. Jiang et al [43] stated that the 12-month risk of readmission was 34.3% in intervention group compared with 56.0% in the control group, but these numbers could not be included in the meta-analysis.

    Number of Hospitalizations

    Patients receiving usual care had a mean number of 0.42 hospitalizations. A meta-analysis with 9 studies showed that the group with remote patient monitoring had 0.13 fewer hospitalizations (95% CI –0.29 to 0.03; low certainty; Figure 4, Multimedia Appendix 2). We did not perform mixed effects meta-regression, subgroup, or test for publication bias for this outcome.

    ‎
    Figure 4. Meta-analysis of the number of hospitalizations in groups randomized to remote patient monitoring or usual care, with the risk of bias assessments for the outcome shown on the right for each study.

    Abelsen et al [64] measured the number of unplanned hospital admissions after 6 months and 12 months and reported no difference between the groups after 6 months. However, they found an increase in the number of admissions in the remote patient monitoring group compared with the usual care group after 12 months.

    Length of Hospital Stay

    The mean hospital length of stay in the usual care group was 6.82 days. A meta-analysis with 12 studies showed that the length of hospital stay was slightly shorter for the remote patient monitoring group, at 0.84 days shorter (95% CI –1.61 to –0.06; low certainty; Figure 5, Multimedia Appendix 2). None of the explanatory variables had a significant effect on length of hospital stay. The Egger test was not significant (P=.08).

    ‎
    Figure 5. Meta-analysis of the length of hospital stay (in days) in groups randomized to remote patient monitoring or usual care, with the risk of bias assessments for the outcome shown on the right for each study.

    Abelsen et al [63,64] measured the number of hospital bed days for unplanned admissions after 6 months and 12 months and reported no difference between the groups. Andersen et al [29] reported the median length of stay in the hospital for 0 months through 6 months as 5 days in the telegroup and 7 days in the control group. For a period of 0 months through 24 months, they reported 4 days in both groups. It was not possible to compute an effect size. Broadbent et al [32] reported the total number of days in hospital for respiratory problems in the intervention and control groups. It was not possible to compute an effect size. Garanin et al [37] reported that the intervention group was hospitalized for a mean number of 7.5 days and the usual care group was hospitalized for a mean of 10.2 days. It was not possible to compute an effect size.

    Proportion With Outpatient Visits

    A meta-analysis with 6 studies showed almost no difference in the proportion of patients with outpatient visits between the 2 groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02; moderate certainty; Figure 6, Multimedia Appendix 2). We did not perform mixed effects meta-regression, subgroup based on condition, or test for publication bias for this outcome.

    ‎
    Figure 6. Meta-analysis of the proportion of outpatient visits in groups randomized to remote patient monitoring or usual care, with the risk of bias assessments for the outcome shown on the right for each study.
    Mean Number of Outpatient Visits

    The studies came from many different countries with diverse health care systems. We decided not to distinguish between private or public clinic visits, medical consultations, private physicians, or general practitioners. Instead, we categorized all these consultations as “outpatient visits.” The usual care group had a mean number of 8.13 outpatient visits. A meta-analysis with 8 studies showed that the remote patient monitoring group had slightly more outpatient visits (0.41 more), thus favoring the usual care group, but the 95% CI crossed zero (95% CI –0.22 to 1.03; low certainty; Figure 7, Multimedia Appendix 2). We did not perform mixed effects meta-regression, subgroup based on condition, or test for publication bias for this outcome.

    ‎
    Figure 7. Meta-analysis of the mean number of outpatient visits in groups randomized to remote patient monitoring or usual care, with the risk of bias assessments for the outcome shown on the right for each study.

    Abelsen et al [63,64] measured the number of outpatient visits and number of contacts with general practitioners after 6 months and 12 months. They found no difference in the number of outpatient visits and a tendency toward a greater increase in the number of general practitioner consultations in the remote patient monitoring group compared with the usual care group after 6 months and 12 months.

    Proportion With Emergency Visits

    A meta-analysis with 11 studies showed little or no difference between the groups on proportion of emergency visits (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; low certainty; Figure 8, Multimedia Appendix 2). There was no indication of publication bias (Egger test, P=.75). We did not perform mixed effects meta-regression or subgroup analysis based on condition because the heterogeneity was low.

    ‎
    Figure 8. Meta-analysis on the proportion of emergency visits in groups randomized to remote patient monitoring or usual care, with the risk of bias assessments for the outcome shown on the right for each study.
    Number of Emergency Visits

    The usual care group had a mean number of 0.86 emergency visits. A meta-analysis with 7 studies showed very low certainty evidence for the number of emergency visits (mean difference 0.00, 95% CI –0.31 to 0.32; very low certainty; Figure 9, Multimedia Appendix 2). We did not perform mixed effects meta-regression, perform subgroup analysis based on condition, or test for publication bias.

    ‎
    Figure 9. Meta-analysis on the number of emergency visits in groups randomized to remote patient monitoring or usual care, with the risk of bias assessments for the outcome shown on the right for each study.

    Abelsen et al [63,64] examined both the number of stays in municipal acute care and the number of contacts with emergency services after 6 months and 12 months. The study found no differences between the groups for either measure.

    Home Care Services

    Witt Udsen 2017 [60] measured the average hours spent on health care services at home over a 12- month period, finding that more hours were spent on home health care services in the remote patient monitoring group compared with the usual care group (mean difference 523.2, 95% CI –152.6 to 1199.0 hours).

    Similarly, Abelsen et al [63,64] measured the average number of home health care visits after 6 months and 12 months and reported no differences between groups.

    Institutional Stay

    None of the included studies reported on institutional stay, only hospitalizations.

    Absolute Effects

    So far, we presented relative effects of remote patient monitoring compared with usual care, reporting RRs and mean differences. However, to fully grasp the impact and understand how many individuals are actually affected, it is important to also consider the absolute numbers. Table 4 shows the proportions of hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and emergency visits for the 2 groups, and Table 5 shows the numbers of hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and emergency visits and length of hospital stay in days.

    Table 4. Proportions with hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and emergency visits in remote patient monitoring versus usual care.
    OutcomesUsual careRemote patient monitoring
    Proportion hospitalized0.320.28
    Proportion with outpatient visits0.590.55
    Proportion with emergency visits0.290.26
    Table 5. Absolute numbers of hospitalizations, days in hospital, outpatient visits, and emergency visits in remote patient monitoring versus usual care.
    OutcomesUsual careRemote patient monitoring
    Number of hospitalizations0.420.29
    Length of hospital stay6.826.01
    Number of outpatient visits8.138.54
    Number of emergency visits0.860.86

    Principal Findings

    Remote patient monitoring may slightly reduce the proportion of hospital stays, but it may make little or no difference to the number or length of hospital stays. It likely has little or no effect on the proportion of patients with outpatient visits and may result in little or no difference in the mean number of outpatient visits or the proportion with emergency visits. The evidence is uncertain regarding the effect of remote patient monitoring on the number of emergency visits.

    Other systematic reviews have similar findings. Iqbal and colleagues [65], who examined clinical outcomes of digital alerting systems in remote monitoring, also found reductions in hospitalizations and length of stay for certain cohorts. However, they found no important benefit on emergency department or outpatient visits. Similarly, a review by Auener et al [66] on telemonitoring for chronic heart failure patients showed no clear differences in health care utilization between the remote monitoring group and usual care, except for an increase in nonemergency outpatient department visits for the remote monitoring group. These findings suggest that closer monitoring through remote patient monitoring may lead to more frequent health care interactions in an outpatient setting. Improved condition management through continuous monitoring and timely intervention can potentially lower the incidence of critical health episodes, reducing the demand for more costly interventions like hospitalizations. Patients who are remotely monitored may also feel a greater sense of security or may be more inclined to seek medical attention for minor symptoms or concerns that they might otherwise have ignored. This increased health care–seeking behavior could lead to higher health care utilization rates of, for example, outpatient clinical visits and potentially counteract savings from remote monitoring.

    Hospitalizations are highly resource-intensive and costly [67]. Although our findings on the absolute reduction in the proportion of hospitalized patients may seem small, with a reduction from 32% to 28%, this modest reduction is expected to result in significant cost savings. Fewer hospitalizations and shorter hospital stays can lead to decreased health care costs per patient and allow for more efficient use of hospital resources, such as freeing up beds and reducing the burden on health care staff. This, in turn, enables hospitals to accommodate more patients and potentially reduces wait times for critical care.

    Previous reviews have shown mixed results regarding the cost-effectiveness of remote patient monitoring [68], and remote patient monitoring systems sometimes lead to increased utilization of health care services rather than the anticipated reduction. The effectiveness of remote monitoring in reducing health care resource utilization may vary depending on the specific patient population, disease condition, and health care setting [69]. Thomas et al [14] identified several factors contributing to increased health care utilization. These included recruiting high-risk populations, failure to integrate remote patient monitoring into workflows, and system measurement errors. Specific issues such as slow responses to alerts and low adherence to the remote follow-up by patients or clinicians were significant contributors to increased acute care use in the remote patient monitoring group. To reduce hospitalizations, it is crucial that remote patient monitoring systems accurately predict disease exacerbations by detecting changes in symptoms related to disease worsening. This can be particularly challenging in populations with unpredictable disease progression [14]. Patients who are more prone to frequent hospitalizations may experience a greater reduction in admissions with timely interventions made possible by remote monitoring. However, in practice, clinicians may hesitate to rely on remote assessments for their most vulnerable and critically ill patients [14]. The subgroup analysis in our review indicated that remote patient monitoring may reduce hospitalizations for patients with heart disease and COPD, but among the other NCDs, there were little or no differences. A systematic review of evaluations of noninvasive remote patient monitoring for chronic diseases [69] found that remote patient monitoring was highly cost-effective for hypertension. However, for COPD and heart failure, the cost-effectiveness varied depending on the severity of the disease. These findings suggest that certain patient populations may benefit more from remote monitoring than others and that variations in outcomes are influenced by factors such as diagnosis severity, health care setting, and the specific design of the remote patient monitoring intervention. Consequently, the impact on health care resource utilization may differ across contexts.

    Regarding organizational aspects, remote patient monitoring can potentially streamline care, but it can also introduce complexities that may offset resource savings. For instance, remote patient monitoring generates large volumes of health data, which must be processed, cleaned, analyzed, and managed before it can be reliably used for clinical decision support. This not only requires robust data handling procedures but also the allocation of resources and adaptation of existing health care infrastructure to effectively integrate these systems into routine care [70,71]. Moreover, following up missing data due to lack of patient adherence or problems with devices presents additional, resource-intensive challenges that must be addressed to ensure safe and equitable care [72]. Alignment and adaptation of infrastructure, along with training and upskilling of staff, seem crucial to meet the demands of remote monitoring, ensuring continuity of patient care without creating gaps. Substantial investments in technology, training, and support are required to implement remote patient monitoring, and these costs may not be immediately offset by savings [69]. There is also a rapid advancement in digital solutions, and our results show that newer studies suggest better results in terms of resource utilization than older studies.

    Strengths and Limitations

    This systematic review’s selection of eligible studies relied on a clearly defined and systematic search strategy. Although it is possible that we overlooked studies due to insufficient descriptions of interventions or populations in the title or abstract, we believe it is likely that we identified the most relevant studies. We only included studies in which the intervention was conducted in 2013 or later. This may have excluded valuable research from earlier periods. However, given the significant advancements in technology in recent years, we prioritized newer studies to provide more realistic and up-to-date results. We did not examine health care personnels’ resource use related to remote follow-up, though previous studies suggest that handling incoming data from patient-reported outcome measures can be time-consuming for staff and may place a significant burden on health care providers in terms of time and resources [73].

    Further, we assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence transparently and systematically. These assessments allow readers to make their own judgments of the strength of the evidence. However, in many of the studies, the settings, interventions, and populations were poorly described, which may introduce limitations when synthesizing results from studies with different populations and intervention types. We attempted to account for this in our GRADE assessments, but due to poor reporting and a lack of detailed information about the settings, there may still be challenges related to heterogeneity. This could affect the overall interpretation of the findings and reduce confidence in the conclusions drawn. Moreover, regarding the outcome of outpatient visits, it is somewhat unclear what specific terms like “outpatient clinic visits,” “outpatient visits,” “medical consultations,” and visits to “private physicians” or “general practitioners” precisely mean in the studies we reviewed. This inconsistency in terminology represents a limitation and should be considered carefully when interpreting this outcome, as it may affect the comparability of health care utilization results across the studies.

    The evidence base is heavily skewed toward studies conducted in high-income countries, which limits the applicability of the findings to low- and middle-income settings. Additionally, considerable heterogeneity in patient populations and interventions across studies complicates the ability to draw broader, generalizable conclusions. The lack of economic evaluations in this review also limits our ability to assess cost-effectiveness, which is a critical factor for informing health care policy and implementation decisions.

    Implications for Future Research

    Future research should explore ways to streamline the processing of data from patient-reported outcomes measures through automated tools and improved system integration to optimize efficiency. Understanding the relationship between remote monitoring and resource utilization—along with identifying barriers and facilitators—is crucial to develop services that can maintain or improve current standards of care while being more resource-efficient. There is also a need for systematic reviews that examine more homogeneous patient groups and forms of digital home follow-up to better understand which groups may benefit from specific treatments. Additionally, a more comprehensive health-economic analysis is needed, considering resource use more holistically, including costs associated with technology acquisition, maintenance, follow-up on incoming data, service usage, and impacts on work absence, among other factors.

    Conclusions

    This systematic review showed that remote patient monitoring possibly led to lower proportions of patients being hospitalized, fewer hospitalizations, and shorter hospital length of stay compared with usual care. The proportion of patients with outpatient visits was probably similar for remote patient monitoring and usual care. Remote patient monitoring had possibly more outpatient visits compared with usual care. The proportion with emergency visits was possibly similar between the groups. We are uncertain about the effect on number of emergency visits. The results should be considered with caution as the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. We did not find results regarding institutional stay.

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank Gyri Hval for conducting the literature searches.

    The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway (328657) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PRISMA checklist.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 142 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Search strategy and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 302 KB
    1. Vandenberghe D, Albrecht J. The financial burden of non-communicable diseases in the European Union: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. Aug 01, 2020;30(4):833-839. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Atun R, Jaffar S, Nishtar S, Knaul FM, Barreto ML, Nyirenda M, et al. Improving responsiveness of health systems to non-communicable diseases. Lancet. Feb 23, 2013;381(9867):690-697. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization. Dec 23, 2024. URL: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases [accessed 2025-09-19]
    4. Healthier Together: EU Non-Communicable Diseases Initiative,. European Union. 2022. URL: https:/​/health.​ec.europa.eu/​document/​download/​d843d53e-c1c1-4664-b31e-febf618d011a_en?filename=eu-ncd-initiative_publication_en_0.​pdf [accessed 2025-09-20]
    5. Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jané-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom LR, Fathima S, et al. The Global Economic Burden of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva. World Economic Forum. Sep 2011. URL: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011.pdf [accessed 2025-09-20]
    6. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Knowledge Gateway. European Commission. URL: https:/​/knowledge4policy.​ec.europa.eu/​health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/​cost-non-communicable-diseases-eu_en [accessed 2025-04-24]
    7. Albahri OS, Albahri AS, Mohammed KI, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Hashim M, et al. Systematic review of real-time remote health monitoring system in triage and priority-based sensor technology: taxonomy, open challenges, motivation and recommendations. J Med Syst. Mar 22, 2018;42(5):80. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Peyroteo M, Ferreira IA, Elvas LB, Ferreira JC, Lapão LV. Remote monitoring systems for patients with chronic diseases in primary health care: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Dec 21, 2021;9(12):e28285. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. The ongoing journey to commitmenttransformation: digital health in the WHO European Region. World Health Organization. 2023. URL: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/librariesprovider2/data-and-evidence/english-ddh-260823_7amcet.pdf [accessed 2025-09-20]
    10. Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. World Health Organization. 2019. URL: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/311941/9789241550505-eng.pdf [accessed 2025-09-20]
    11. Solomon DH, Rudin RS. Digital health technologies: opportunities and challenges in rheumatology. Nat Rev Rheumatol. Sep 2020;16(9):525-535. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Le KH, La TXP, Tykkyläinen M. Service quality and accessibility of healthcare facilities: digital healthcare potential in Ho Chi Minh City. BMC Health Serv Res. Nov 19, 2022;22(1):1374. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Hewlett S, Mitchell K, Haynes J, Paine T, Korendowych E, Kirwan JR. Patient-initiated hospital follow-up for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). Sep 2000;39(9):990-997. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Thomas EE, Taylor ML, Banbury A, Snoswell CL, Haydon HM, Gallegos Rejas VM, et al. Factors influencing the effectiveness of remote patient monitoring interventions: a realist review. BMJ Open. Aug 25, 2021;11(8):e051844. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Hestevik CN, Bjerk M, Klem H, Hval G, Kleven L. Digital hjemmeoppfølging og ressursbruk i primær- og spesialisthelsetjenestenn systematisk oversikt. Folkehelseinstituttet. Aug 29, 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​fhi.no/​publ/​2022/​digital-hjemmeoppfolging-og-ressursbruk-i-primar--og-spesialisthelsetjenest/​ [accessed 2025-09-20]
    16. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane. URL: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook [accessed 2025-09-20]
    17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. Oct 2009;62(10):1006-1012. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi S. EPPI-Reviewer 4: software for research synthesis. EPPI-Centre Software. London, England. Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education; 2010. URL: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx [accessed 2025-09-20]
    19. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. Aug 28, 2019;366:l4898. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. RevMan Web (Review Manager). The Cochrane Collaboration. URL: https://revman.cochrane.org [accessed 2025-09-20]
    21. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2010;36(3):1-48. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    22. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. Apr 2011;64(4):383-394. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, Garner P, Akl EA, Alper B, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. Mar 2020;119:126-135. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Absolom K, Warrington L, Hudson E, Hewison J, Morris C, Holch P, et al. Phase III randomized controlled trial of eRAPID: eHealth intervention during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. Mar 01, 2021;39(7):734-747. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Achury-Saldaña DM, Gonzalez RA, Garcia A, Mariño A, Bohorquez WR. Efficacy of a telemonitoring system as a complementary strategy in the treatment of patients with heart failure: randomized clinical trial. Comput Inform Nurs. Jul 01, 2024;42(7):522-529. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Ackermann DM, Dieng M, Medcalf E, Jenkins MC, van Kemenade CH, Janda M, et al. Assessing the potential for patient-led surveillance after treatment of localized melanoma (MEL-SELF): a pilot randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. Jan 01, 2022;158(1):33-42. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Agarwal P, Mukerji G, Desveaux L, Ivers NM, Bhattacharyya O, Hensel JM, et al. Mobile app for improved self-management of type 2 diabetes: multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 10, 2019;7(1):e10321. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Alshahrani NS, Hartley A, Howard J, Hajhosseiny R, Khawaja S, Seligman H, et al. Randomized trial of remote assessment of patients after an acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. Jun 11, 2024;83(23):2250-2259. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Andersen FD, Trolle C, Pedersen AR, Køpfli ML, Børgesen S, Jensen MS, et al. Effect of telemonitoring on readmissions for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized clinical trial. J Telemed Telecare. Jan 23, 2023;30(9):1417-1424. [CrossRef]
    30. Angermann CE, Sehner S, Faller H, Güder G, Morbach C, Frantz S, et al. INH Study Group of the Competence Network Heart Failure. Longer-term effects of remote patient management following hospital discharge after acute systolic heart failure: the randomized E-INH trial. JACC Heart Fail. Feb 2023;11(2):191-206. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Benzo R, Hoult J, McEvoy C, Clark M, Benzo M, Johnson M, et al. Promoting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease wellness through remote monitoring and health coaching: a clinical trial. Annals ATS. Nov 2022;19(11):1808-1817. [CrossRef]
    32. Broadbent E, Garrett J, Jepsen N, Li Ogilvie V, Ahn HS, Robinson H, et al. Using robots at home to support patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Feb 13, 2018;20(2):e45. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Dorsch MP, Farris KB, Rowell BE, Hummel SL, Koelling TM. The effects of the ManageHF4Life mobile app on patients with chronic heart failure: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Dec 07, 2021;9(12):e26185. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Faurholt-Jepsen M, Lindbjerg Tønning M, Fros M, Martiny K, Tuxen N, Rosenberg N, et al. Reducing the rate of psychiatric re-admissions in bipolar disorder using smartphones-the RADMIS trial. Acta Psychiatr Scand. May 26, 2021;143(5):453-465. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Franz N, Rapp H, Hansen RN, Gold LS, Goss CH, Lechtzin N, et al. Health care costs related to home spirometry in the eICE randomized trial. J Cyst Fibros. Jan 2022;21(1):61-69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Galinier M, Roubille F, Berdague P, Brierre G, Cantie P, Dary P, et al. OSICAT Investigators. Telemonitoring versus standard care in heart failure: a randomised multicentre trial. Eur J Heart Fail. Jun 2020;22(6):985-994. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Garanin AA, Mullova IS, Shkaeva OV, Duplyakova PD, Duplyakov DV. Remote monitoring of outpatients discharged from the emergency cardiac care department. Russian Journal of Cardiology. Sep 13, 2022;27(3S):5072. [CrossRef]
    38. Gomis-Pastor M, Mirabet Perez S, De Dios Lopez A, Brossa Loidi V, Lopez Lopez L, Pelegrin Cruz R, et al. Does an eHealth intervention reduce complications and healthcare resources? A mHeart single-center randomized-controlled trial. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. Feb 10, 2023;10(2):77. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Greer JA, Jacobs JM, Pensak N, Nisotel LE, Fishbein JN, MacDonald JJ, et al. Randomized trial of a smartphone mobile app to improve symptoms and adherence to oral therapy for cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. Feb 2020;18(2):133-141. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Hernandez-Quiles C, Bernabeu-Wittel M, Barón-Franco B, Palacios AA, Garcia-Serrano MR, Lopez-Jimeno W, et al. A randomized clinical trial of home telemonitoring in patients with advanced heart and lung diseases. J Telemed Telecare. Dec 01, 2021;30(2):356-364. [CrossRef]
    41. Indraratna P, Biswas U, McVeigh J, Mamo A, Magdy J, Vickers D, et al. A smartphone-based model of care to support patients with cardiac disease transitioning from hospital to the community (TeleClinical Care): pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 28, 2022;10(2):e32554. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Jiang W, Jin X, Du C, Gu W, Gao X, Zhou C, et al. Internet of things-based management versus standard management of home noninvasive ventilation in COPD patients with hypercapnic chronic respiratory failure: a multicentre randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. EClinicalMedicine. Apr 2024;70:102518. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Jiang Y, Ramachandran HJ, Teo JYC, Leong FL, Lim ST, Nguyen HD, et al. Effectiveness of a nurse-led smartphone-based self-management programme for people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. J Adv Nurs. Apr 15, 2022;78(4):1154-1165. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Krzesiński P, Jankowska EA, Siebert J, Galas A, Piotrowicz K, Stańczyk A, et al. Effects of an outpatient intervention comprising nurse-led non-invasive assessments, telemedicine support and remote cardiologists' decisions in patients with heart failure (AMULET study): a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail. Mar 2022;24(3):565-577. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Laursen SL, Helweg-Jørgensen S, Langergaard A, Søndergaard J, Sørensen SS, Mathiasen K, et al. Mobile diary app versus paper-based diary cards for patients with borderline personality disorder: economic evaluation. J Med Internet Res. Nov 11, 2021;23(11):e28874. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Lee M, Kang D, Kang E, Kim S, Kim Y, Ahn JS, et al. Efficacy of the PRO-CTCAE mobile application for improving patient participation in symptom management during cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. May 06, 2023;31(6):321. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Mizukawa M, Moriyama M, Yamamoto H, Rahman MM, Naka M, Kitagawa T, et al. Nurse-led collaborative management using telemonitoring improves quality of life and prevention of rehospitalization in patients with heart failure. Int Heart J. Nov 30, 2019;60(6):1293-1302. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Piotrowicz E, Pencina MJ, Opolski G, Zareba W, Banach M, Kowalik I, et al. Effects of a 9-week hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation program on long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure: the Telerehabilitation in Heart Failure Patients (TELEREH-HF) randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. Mar 01, 2020;5(3):300-308. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Rohde LE, Rover MM, Hoffmann Filho CR, Rabelo-Silva ER, Silvestre OM, Martins SM, et al. MESSAGE-HF Investigators. Multifaceted strategy based on automated text messaging after a recent heart failure admission: the MESSAGE-HF randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. Feb 01, 2024;9(2):105-113. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Shimoyama M, Yoshida S, Takahashi C, Inoue M, Sato N, Sato F. Effectiveness of a telenursing intervention program in reducing exacerbations in patients with chronic respiratory failure receiving noninvasive positive pressure ventilation: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. Oct 26, 2023;18(10):e0269753. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Soriano JB, García-Río F, Vázquez-Espinosa E, Conforto JI, Hernando-Sanz A, López-Yepes L, et al. A multicentre, randomized controlled trial of telehealth for the management of COPD. Respir Med. Nov 2018;144:74-81. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Stamenova V, Liang K, Yang R, Engel K, van Lieshout F, Lalingo E, et al. Technology-enabled self-management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with or without asynchronous remote monitoring: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Jul 30, 2020;22(7):e18598. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Temple-Oberle C, Yakaback S, Webb C, Assadzadeh GE, Nelson G. Effect of smartphone app postoperative home monitoring after oncologic surgery on quality of recovery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. Jul 01, 2023;158(7):693-699. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Tønning ML, Faurholt-Jepsen M, Frost M, Martiny K, Tuxen N, Rosenberg N, et al. The effect of smartphone-based monitoring and treatment on the rate and duration of psychiatric readmission in patients with unipolar depressive disorder: the RADMIS randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord. Mar 01, 2021;282:354-363. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Wagenaar KP, Broekhuizen BDL, Jaarsma T, Kok I, Mosterd A, Willems FF, et al. Effectiveness of the European Society of Cardiology/Heart Failure Association website 'heartfailurematters.org' and an e-health adjusted care pathway in patients with stable heart failure: results of the 'e-Vita HF' randomized controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail. Feb 2019;21(2):238-246. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Walker PP, Pompilio PP, Zanaboni P, Bergmo TS, Prikk K, Malinovschi A, et al. Telemonitoring in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CHROMED). A randomized clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Sep 01, 2018;198(5):620-628. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Wang S, Leung M, Leung S, Han J, Leung W, Hui E, et al. Safety, feasibility, and acceptability of telemedicine for hypertension in primary care: a proof-of-concept and pilot randomized controlled trial (SATE-HT). J Med Syst. Mar 11, 2023;47(1):34. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Ware P, Shah A, Ross HJ, Logan AG, Segal P, Cafazzo JA, et al. Challenges of telemonitoring programs for complex chronic conditions: randomized controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. Jan 26, 2022;24(1):e31754. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Widmer RJ, Allison TG, Lennon R, Lopez-Jimenez F, Lerman LO, Lerman A. Digital health intervention during cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J. Jun 2017;188:65-72. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Witt Udsen F, Lilholt PH, Hejlesen O, Ehlers L. Cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the Danish 'TeleCare North' cluster-randomised trial. BMJ Open. May 17, 2017;7(5):e014616. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Wood J, Jenkins S, Putrino D, Mulrennan S, Morey S, Cecins N, et al. A smartphone application for reporting symptoms in adults with cystic fibrosis improves the detection of exacerbations: results of a randomised controlled trial. J Cyst Fibros. Mar 2020;19(2):271-276. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Yanicelli LM, Goy CB, González VDC, Palacios GN, Martínez EC, Herrera MC. Non-invasive home telemonitoring system for heart failure patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Telemed Telecare. Jan 23, 2020;27(9):553-561. [CrossRef]
    63. Abelsen B, Godager G, Harsheim I, Iversen T, Kristiansen I, Løyland H. Evaluering av utprøving av digital hjemmeoppfølging: Delrapport II. Oslo Economics. Apr 30, 2021. URL: https:/​/osloeconomics.​no/​wp-content/​uploads/​2021/​05/​Evaluering-av-utproving-av-digital-hjemmeoppfolging-delrapport-II-1.​pdf [accessed 2025-09-20]
    64. Abelsen B, Godager G, Harsheim I, Iversen T, Kristiansen I, Løyland H. Evaluering av utprøving av digital hjemmeoppfølging: Sluttrapport. Oslo Economics. Jan 07, 2022. URL: https://tinyurl.com/f3kjeznf [accessed 2025-09-20]
    65. Iqbal FM, Lam K, Joshi M, Khan S, Ashrafian H, Darzi A. Clinical outcomes of digital sensor alerting systems in remote monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Digit Med. Jan 08, 2021;4(1):7. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Auener SL, Remers TEP, van Dulmen SA, Westert GP, Kool RB, Jeurissen PPT. The effect of noninvasive telemonitoring for chronic heart failure on health care utilization: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Sep 29, 2021;23(9):e26744. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. WHO-CHOICE estimates of cost for inpatient and outpatient health service delivery. World Health Organization. 2021. URL: https:/​/cdn.​who.int/​media/​docs/​default-source/​health-economics/​who-choice-estimates-of-cost-for-inpatient-and-outpatient-health-service-delivery.​pdf?sfvrsn=b814d37e_3&download=true [accessed 2025-09-19]
    68. Eze ND, Mateus C, Cravo Oliveira Hashiguchi T. Telemedicine in the OECD: an umbrella review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, patient experience and implementation. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237585. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. De Guzman KR, Snoswell CL, Taylor ML, Gray LC, Caffery LJ. Economic evaluations of remote patient monitoring for chronic disease: a systematic review. Value Health. Jun 2022;25(6):897-913. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Abdolkhani R, Gray K, Borda A, DeSouza R. Patient-generated health data management and quality challenges in remote patient monitoring. JAMIA Open. Dec 2019;2(4):471-478. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Davis MM, Freeman M, Kaye J, Vuckovic N, Buckley DI. A systematic review of clinician and staff views on the acceptability of incorporating remote monitoring technology into primary care. Telemed J E Health. May 2014;20(5):428-438. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Vandenberk B, Raj SR. Remote patient monitoring: what have we learned and where are we going? Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. Apr 22, 2023;17(6):103-115. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Gu Y, Guan Y, Meng Z. Health providers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth for chronic noncommunicable diseases: qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. J Med Internet Res. Sep 12, 2023;25:e45437. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation
    GSM: Global System for Mobile Communications module
    NCD: noncommunicable disease
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    RoB 2: Cochrane risk-of-bias Tool
    RR: risk ratio

    Edited by L Buis; submitted 06.Nov.2024; peer-reviewed by Y Li, ADS Menezes; comments to author 20.Mar.2025; revised version received 22.May.2025; accepted 16.Sep.2025; published 01.Oct.2025.

    Copyright

    ©Geir Smedslund, Nina Østerås, Christine Hillestad Hestevik. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 01.Oct.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.