Digital Health Technology Interventions for Improving Medication Safety: Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Medication-related harm, including adverse drug events (ADEs) and medication errors, represents a significant iatrogenic burden in clinical care. Digital health technology (DHT) interventions can significantly enhance medication safety outcomes. Although the clinical effectiveness of DHT for medication safety has been relatively well studied, much less is known about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

This study aimed to systematically review the economic impact of DHT interventions on medication safety and examine methodological challenges to inform future research directions.

A systematic search was conducted across 3 major electronic databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost). The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Two independent investigators conducted a full-text review after screening preliminary titles and abstracts. We adopted recommendations from the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine for data extraction. A narrative analysis was conducted to synthesize clinical and economic outcomes. The quality of reporting for the included studies was assessed using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines.

We included 13 studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness (n=9, 69.2%), cost-benefit (n=3, 23.1%), and cost-utility (n=1, 7.7%) of DHT for medication safety. Of the included studies, more than half (n=7, 53.9%) evaluated a clinical decision support system (CDSS)/computerized provider order entry (CPOE), 4 (30.8%) examined automated medication-dispensing systems, and 2 (15.4%) focused on pharmacist-led outreach programs targeting health care professionals. In 12 (92.3% ) studies, DHT was either cost-effective or cost beneficial compared to standard care. On average, DHT interventions reduced ADEs by 37.12% (range 8.2%-66.5%) and medication errors by 54.38% (range 24%-83%). The key drivers of cost-effectiveness included reductions in outcomes, the proportion of errors resulting in ADEs, and implementation costs. Despite a significant upfront cost, DHT showed a return on investment within 3-4.25 years due to lower cost related with ADE treatment and improved workflow efficiency. In terms of reporting quality, the studies were classified as good (n=10, 76.9%) and moderate (n=3, 23.1%). Key methodological challenges included short follow-up periods, the absence of alert compliance tracking, the lack of ADE and error severity categorization, and omission of indirect costs.

DHT interventions are economically viable to improve medication safety, with a substantial reduction in ADEs and medication errors. Future studies should prioritize incorporating alert compliance tracking, ADE and error severity classification, and evaluation of indirect costs, thereby increasing clinical benefits and economic viability.