Telemedicine in Chronic Disease Management: Evidence from Norway
Telemedicine has garnered increasing interest, and it holds the potential to play a crucial role in primary healthcare moving forward. The question arises: Is telemedicine more efficient and cost-effective than traditional primary healthcare delivery?
Worldwide, many countries struggle with shortages of healthcare workers, while aging society leads to increased disease burden with high levels of morbidity from chronic diseases [1–7]. Telemedicine and home monitoring promise affordable high-quality care in domestic settings and residential care [8, 9]. Despite its potential to revolutionize primary healthcare, telemedicine faces significant challenges due to barriers like acceptance, technological limitations, reimbursement models, and cultural differences [1, 10, 11]. Empirical studies struggle to demonstrate telemedicine’s superiority over traditional care [12, 13].
Thus, the question remains: Is there comprehensive evidence that telemedicine is more efficient and cost-effective than usual primary care?
A telemedicine-based Study in chronic Disease Management from Norway
Sten-Gahmberg et al. (2024) initiated a telemedicine study in primary healthcare, funded by the Norwegian Directorate of Health (NDH), by selecting six health centres[1]. These centres were responsible for recruiting volunteers, providing technical support for telemedicine, and integrating services among general practitioners (GPs), follow-up agencies and other healthcare providers. Patients engaged in telemedicine received a tablet computer and remote monitoring equipment, which they were trained to use at the health centre. The collected health data was transmitted to a follow-up centre where nurses, patients, and GPs collaboratively created personalized treatment plans. Follow-up nurses continuously monitored the data, offered guidance, counselling, and medical support. If deviations from normal values occurred, follow-up professionals determined with the patient whether a referral to a GP or specialist is necessary.
Telemedicine-based Intervention vs. Traditional Intervention
Sten-Gahmberg et al. (2024) compared the outcomes between the complex and structured telemedicine model and traditional treatment in managing chronic diseases. The study enrolled adults with at least one chronic health condition, including diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and mental illness, totalling 636 participants. Through a pragmatic randomized trial, researchers assessed the effectiveness and cost-benefit of the telemedicine intervention compared to usual care.
The analysis results revealed that the telemedicine-based follow-up showed increased patient satisfaction, security, and self-efficacy, and prevented health deterioration. It improved health outcomes and reduced the need for home-based care, although specialist service usage remained constant. Despite the cost-benefit analysis revealing higher costs than benefits, non-monetized gains like safety might justify the expenditure if targeted effectively.
Figure 1: Telemedicine-Based Intervention
Implementation of telemedicine in Germany
Despite facing similar healthcare challenges as Norway, Germany’s telemedicine adoption is suboptimal. A 2020 Deloitte survey revealed that only 30% of German healthcare providers use telemedicine, substantially lower than the European average of 43% and Denmark’s 61% [14]. Further, Bitkom Research in 2022 reported that below 33% of physicians in German hospitals offer telemedicine-based services [15].
To enhance telemedicine in Germany’s healthcare system, several key strategies are essential. These include the development of a national infrastructure and investment in a robust healthcare IT infrastructure for uniform standards and broad access [16, 17]. Comprehensive training for healthcare providers and patient education on telemedicine technologies are also crucial to boost digital competence and acceptance [18]. Furthermore, promoting R&D for new telemedicine applications and supporting projects to evaluate its effectiveness in various healthcare settings is vital. Lastly, updating policy frameworks to facilitate telemedicine integration and reimbursement is necessary to align with contemporary healthcare trends.
Conclusion
The Norwegian study underscores telemedicine’s efficacy in managing chronic conditions. Despite the complexity and challenges of implementing telemedicine-based services in primary care, the results support its future use in primary care scenarios.
For Germany, broader telemedicine adoption could tackle key healthcare challenges. By fortifying digital infrastructure, fostering digital competence, promoting telemedicine R&D, and refining health policies, Germany could revolutionize primary healthcare and set a global benchmark.
Also read: Smart TV als Remote Care Lösung
References
[1] Sten-Gahmberg S, Pedersen K, Harsheim IG*, et al.*Pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a complex telemedicine-based intervention with usual care in patients with chronic conditions. Eur J Health Econ 2024
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01664-w]
[2] Mbemba GIC, Gagnon M-P, Hamelin-Brabant L. Factors Influencing Recruitment and Retention of Healthcare Workers in Rural and Remote Areas in Developed and Developing Countries: An Overview. J Public Health Afr 2016; 7(2): 565
[https://doi.org/10.4081/jphia.2016.565]
[3] Parzonka K, Ndayishimiye C, Domagała A. Methods and Tools Used to Estimate the Shortages of Medical Staff in European Countries-Scoping Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20(4)
[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042945]
[4] Chen S, Kuhn M, Prettner K*, et al.*The global economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for 204 countries and territories in 2020-50: a health-augmented macroeconomic modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 2023; 11(8): e1183-e1193
[https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00217-6]
[5] Chowdhury SR, Chandra Das D, Sunna TC, Beyene J, Hossain A. Global and regional prevalence of multimorbidity in the adult population in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 57: 101860
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101860]
[6] Kyaw TL, Ng N, Theocharaki M, Wennberg P, Sahlen K-G. Cost-effectiveness of Digital Tools for Behavior Change Interventions Among People With Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review. Interact J Med Res 2023; 12: e42396
[https://doi.org/10.2196/42396]
[7] Global burden of chronic respiratory diseases and risk factors, 1990-2019: an update from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 59: 101936
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101936]
[8] Orozco-Beltran D, Sánchez-Molla M, Sanchez JJ, Mira JJ. Telemedicine in Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Conditions: The ValCrònic Quasi-Experimental Study. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19(12): e400
[https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7677]
[9] Ellen ME, Panisset U, Araujo de Carvalho I, Goodwin J, Beard J. A Knowledge Translation framework on ageing and health. Health Policy 2017; 121(3): 282–91
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.12.009]
[10] Ftouni R, AlJardali B, Hamdanieh M, Ftouni L, Salem N. Challenges of Telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022; 22(1): 207
[https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01952-0]
[11] Singh V, Sarbadhikari SN, Jacob AG, John O. Challenges in delivering primary care via telemedicine during COVID-19 pandemic in India: A review synthesis using systems approach. J Family Med Prim Care 2022; 11(6): 2581–8
[https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1559_21]
[12] Mehrotra A, Uscher-Pines L. Informing the Debate about Telemedicine Reimbursement – What Do We Need to Know? N Engl J Med 2022; 387(20): 1821–3
[https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2210790]
[13] Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management–an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18(4): 211–20
[https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2012.120219]
[14] Deloitte. Digital transformation: Shaping the future of European healthcare; September 2020 [cited 2024 May 23] Available from: URL: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/life-sciences-health-care/deloitte-uk-shaping-the-future-of-european-healthcare.pdf.
[15] Rohleder B. Digitalisierung in Praxis und Klinik. Statista: Bitkom; 2022 Oct 13.
[16] Barlinn J, Winzer S, Worthmann H*, et al.*Telemedizin in der Schlaganfallversorgung – versorgungsrelevant für Deutschland. Nervenarzt 2021; 92(6): 593–601
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-021-01137-6]
[17] Stachwitz P, Debatin JF. Digitalisierung im Gesundheitswesen: heute und in Zukunft. Bundesgesundheitsbl 2023; 66(2): 105–13
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-022-03642-8]
[18] Graf N, Paulussen M, Huf T, Ganslandt T, Stahl J, Jürgens H. Telemedizin in der Pädiatrischen Onkologie – Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenaktion des Kompetenznetzes Pädiatrische Onkologie -. Klin Padiatr 2002; 214(1): 8–13
[https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-19860]
