The objective of this study was to critically assess and review empirical evidence on the cost-effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) interventions for older adults. We systematically searched databases such as Pubmed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Literature (CINAHL) for peer-reviewed economic evaluations published in English from 2007 to 2018. We extracted data on methods and empirical evidence (costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) and assessed if this evidence supported the reported findings in terms of cost-effectiveness. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies. Eleven studies were identified and categorized into two groups: complex smartphone communication and simple text-based communication. Substantial heterogeneity among the studies in terms of methodological approaches and types of intervention was observed. The cost-effectiveness of complex smartphone communication interventions cannot be judged due to lack of information. Limited evidence of cost-effectiveness was found for interventions related to simple text-based communications. Comprehensive economic evaluation studies are warranted to assess the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions designed for older adults. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Abstract.Background: A randomized controlled trial of the SMART4MD tablet application was conducted for persons with mildcognitive impairment (PwMCI) and their informal caregivers to improve or maintain quality of life.Objective: The objective was to conduct economic evaluation of SMART4MD compared to standard care in Sweden froma healthcare provider perspective based on a 6-month follow-up period.Methods: Three hundred forty-five dyads were enrolled: 173 dyads in the intervention group and 172 in standard care. Theprimary outcome measures for PwMCI and informal caregivers were quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The results arepresented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and confidence intervals are calculated using non-parametric bootstrapprocedure.Results: For PwMCI, the mean difference in total costs between intervention and standard care was D 12 (95%CI: –2090to 2115) (US$ = D 1.19) and the mean QALY change was –0.004 (95%CI: –0.009 to 0.002). For informal caregivers, thecost difference was – D 539 (95%CI: –2624 to 1545) and 0.003 (95%CI: –0.002 to 0.008) for QALY. The difference in costand QALY for PwMCI and informal caregivers combined was –D 527 (95%CI: –3621 to 2568) and –0.001 (95%CI: –0.008to 0.006). Although generally insignificant differences, this indicates that SMART4MD, compared to standard care was: 1)more costly and less effective for PwMCI, 2) less costly and more effective for informal caregivers, and 3) less costly andless effective for PwMCI and informal caregivers combined.∗Correspondence to: Zartashia Ghani, PhD-Candidate, AppliedHealth Technology, Department of Health, Blekinge Institute ofTechnology, Lumavagen 1, 371 50 Karlskrona, Sweden. Tel.: ¨0046733420237; E-mail: zartashia.ghani@bth.se.ISSN 1387-2877 © 2022 – The authors. Published by IOS Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the termsof the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0).1630 Z. Ghani et al. / Short Term Economic Evaluation of the Digital Platform (SMART4MD)Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of SMART4MD over 6 months is inconclusive, although the intervention might be morebeneficial for informal caregivers than PwMCI.

 ♦ Background: The aim of this study is to compare the impact of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and institutional hemodialysis (IHD), the 2 most common dialysis modalities, on employment, work income, and disability pension in Sweden.  ♦ Methods: Included in this study were 4,734 patients in IHD and PD, aged 20 – 60 years, starting treatment in Sweden during 1995 – 2012, and surviving the first year of dialysis therapy. Both “intention to treat” and “on treatment” analyses were performed by including transplant patients into the former and censoring them at the date of transplant in the latter analysis. A reduced bias treatment effect of PD vs IHD on labor market outcomes was estimated while accounting for non-random selection into treatment.  ♦ Results: Peritoneal dialysis was found to be associated with a 4-percentage-point increased probability of employment compared with IHD in the “on treatment” analysis. Also, PD was associated with a reduced disability pension by 6 percentage points, as well as increased work income (EUR 3,477 for employed) compared with IHD during the first year of treatment. The “intention to treat” analysis tended to give higher effect sizes compared with “on treatment.”  ♦ Conclusions: The results indicate that PD is associated with a treatment advantage over IHD in terms of increased employment, work income, and reduced disability pension in the Swedish population after controlling for non-random selection into treatment.