Digital Health Interventions and Virtual Care Models to Optimise Resource Allocation and Patient Outcomes in Post-Pandemic Healthcare Systems

3.3. Telehealth and Equity in Access to Care

During the COVID -19 pandemic, the blistering development of telehealth services revealed glaring disparities in access and the use of modalities. Chang et al. [4] showed that the rate of telephone encounters was higher in high-vulnerability communities (41.7 %), compared to video consultations, which were more suitable in areas with wealth (33.7 % versus 18.7 %), due to the presence of such barriers as access to devices, computer literacy, and broadband access. Conversely, Sankaranarayan et al. [16] found that heart failure virtual wards (HFVW), where telehealth was integrated, significantly lowered rehospitalisations and death rates at various follow-up stages. According to the authors, the clinical risk consistently was lower than those of standard care, the clinical risk odds ratio of 1-month readmission was 0.30 (95 CI 0.20 -0.50) and odds ratio mortality 0.26 (95 CI 0.14-0.48), that is, equity-neutral benefits have a higher possibility of success in the environments that are furnished with the infrastructure of specialists and intensive monitored environments. Ward et al. [8] reported low mortality and readmission rates in an oxygen therapy virtual ward in the UK, with limitations put on the study by its single-centre nature. On the contrary, Beaney et al. [13] found that the Oximetry @home programme in England did not provide any mortality benefit and had reduced overall enrolment (2.5 per cent), thus negatively impacting the outcome. In addition, van Goor et al. [14] discovered that hospital care using telemedicine reduced inpatient length of stay and did not result in more hospital-free days, casting doubt on the ability of telehealth to alleviate the impact of acute-care burdens. Yahya et al. [31] opined that digital interventions have the potential to contribute to inequalities, redundancy in services, and overtaxing community providers without lowering hospital demand. Such apprehensions resonate with those depicted by Chang et al. [4], who found that more reimbursable telehealth modalities were lower among high-income groups, which then consolidated access inequities. Together with the risk of overstating performance in policy discourse, these findings also point to the fact that digital health interventions cannot be treated as a neutral solution to problems; they can further increase inequity unless accompanied by digital literacy, inclusive enrolment policies, and infrastructure provision.

3.4 Economic Sustainability & Evaluation Frameworks for DHIs

The interpretation of economic findings was done narratively based on a predefined health-system approach that targeted direct service delivery costs. Since no formal economic extraction grid or meta-analytic cost synthesis was performed, these results ought to be viewed as organised narrative economical observations as opposed to an economic synthesis. Even though secondary systematic reviews have shown that numerous digital health interventions emerge to be cost-effective or cost-saving [27, 28], substantial methodological inconsistencies and limited reporting of implementation and operating costs restrict the transferability of findings across healthcare systems. In this review, economic evidence was interpreted using a predefined and consistent evaluation framework. The primary analytical perspective adopted was that of the health-care system, focusing on resource use and expenditure borne by providers rather than wider societal costs. A short-to-medium time horizon was applied, corresponding to the follow-up periods most frequently reported by the included studies, typically 30-day and 6–12-month post-implementation windows.

Cost components were operationalised as direct service delivery and implementation inputs, including staff time for monitoring and virtual consultations, digital devices and software infrastructure, training and technical support, hospital admissions avoided, emergency department attendances, and bed-days saved. In line with methodological critiques of relying solely on QALYs [33], outcome valuation in this review did not privilege health-utility measures alone. Instead, economic outcomes were extracted and synthesised primarily as cost per admission avoided, cost per readmission prevented, and cost per bed-day saved, reflecting resource allocation and operational efficiency more directly.

The need for multidimensional valuation of digital interventions, including workforce effects, continuity of care, and equity considerations, is further emphasised by scoping reviews and protocols [29,34,35]. Consequently, policy-relevant interpretations in this review are grounded in structured cost components and clearly defined time horizons, rather than in simplified or naïve cost-saving assumptions, thereby supporting context-specific economic decision-making in post-pandemic healthcare systems.

4. Discussion

The resulting discussion is an interpretation of findings based on the input process outcome and output framework to reduce the overlap of themes. The contrasts in heterogeneity among studies were organised patternically and not by chance. The effects of the intervention were different based on the intensity of implementation, structure, and health-system context. Low-technology methods, like telephone follow-up and pulse-oximetry monitoring, were more scalable but yielded mixed results in the presence of ineffective enrolment and escalation pathways. Greater-intensity models, such as specialist-devoted virtual wards and hospital-at-home programmes, fared better in well-resourced systems. In general, digital care models seemed the most successful when three conditions were combined: a deep level of patient engagement, formalised escalation routes, sufficient staffing and digital infrastructure, and generalisability to lower-resource contexts was unclear.

The discussion of the results highlights a massive difference between the effectiveness of remote monitoring patterns and virtual wards. Even though Beaney et al. [13] and Ward et al. [8] proved the possibility of taking a load off hospitals by introducing national programmes and single-centre trials, they also show serious limitations. According to Beaney et al. [13], there was no statistically significant mortality reduction and an increased admission rate in a population-level assessment, which was mainly due to low enrolment and unbalanced programme delivery by region. The low involvement and inefficient enrolment in national rollouts hindered the ability of the programme to achieve quantifiable benefits, considering the dilution effect of a 2.5 enrolment rate. Policies that are equity-conscious and that broaden telehealth service coverage are thus necessary to realise digital health potential to enhance care delivery. These factors remind the reader of the significance of implementation fidelity, a key success factor of digital health programmes. Ward et al. [8], on the contrary, had a more specific virtual ward model, which gained promising outcomes such as low mortality and readmission rates. These favourable outcomes were almost inevitably due to the targeted, clinically selected patient cohort, high involvement, and standardised intervention protocols. This comparison thus highlights the need for a patient selection and engagement strategy to achieve the required results. In addition, findings were reported in highly structured models by van Goor et al. [14] and Zychlinski et al. [15].

4.1. Inputs

The results of the study point to one key issue: even though the telehealth modalities hold significant potential to enhance patient outcomes and benefits, they also reveal deep-rooted inequities that determine patient access to care. Chang et al. [4] found significant differences in telehealth adoption, with low-income and vulnerable groups overrepresented among those who rely on telephone consultations, which are less effective than video-based consultations. This digital divide contributes to the existing disparities in healthcare, particularly among marginalised groups, which typically lack the necessary infrastructure and resources to receive higher-quality telemedicine. Ward et al. [8] and Sankaranar et al. [16] showed that well-planned, specialist-led interventions can improve patient care without overwhelming hospitals, thereby motivating serious clinical outcomes associated with telehealth interventions. However, these programmes were applied in resource-heavy environments, which makes their applicability to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) questionable as the digital infrastructure is not currently widely available. The success of hospital-at-home models had also been reported by Zychlinski et al. [15]. However, they emphasised that these results were possible only in well-resourced settings, thus challenging their applicability in low-resource healthcare systems. The efficacy of the digital health interventions is also critical for enrolment and standardisation, as Beaney et al. [13] further emphasised. The Oximetry @home programme failed to achieve its desired results due to the lack of engagement of the participants. This is a severe constraint in large-scale implementations; engagement policies should be robust enough to implement desired interventions and achieve their potential. Moreover, van Goor et al. [14] established that inpatient length of stay can indeed be reduced by remote hospital care. However, these interventions do not necessarily lead to a net decrease in overall healthcare demand, which makes the effectiveness aspect of telehealth complicated. All these results point to the fact that digital health implementation is facing a set of structural challenges that include digital literacy, broadband connectivity, and device affordability, among others. There is therefore need to have equity-based policies which increase the range of telehealth services to realise the potential of digital health of enhancing care delivery.

It has been shown that predictive modelling and artificial intelligence in healthcare can be useful in terms of allocating resources. However, its shortcomings shed some light on the intricacy of the real-world implementation. Tariq et al. [17] have demonstrated that predictive accuracy is better with full datasets, i.e., medical histories, demographics, and other variables of interest of the patients. However, the application of the model in a single healthcare system in the U.S. cities prompts the issue of the model applicability to low-resource or rural locations where the number of patients differs, and the ability to retrieve all clinical records is restricted. Besides, the study notes the value of big data that are heterogeneous to enhance generalisability, which is often impossible with limited digital infrastructure and ill-conceived data-collection systems in most healthcare systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Moris et al. [18] used a technologically superior model for multimodal information fusion, including clinical history and imaging data, which improved predictive performance. However, high-tech imaging capabilities are highly demanding to rely on, particularly in resource-deprived contexts where imaging facilities are scarce. The inherently opaque so-called black-box character of deep-learning models also brings about the question of transparency; clinicians will be challenged in understanding the logic underlying the algorithmic predictions, thus undermining trust and hampering the smooth incorporation of such technologies into clinical decision-making procedures. All of these studies combined highlight the importance of using AI, which can potentially improve resource utilisation and patient outcomes; however, special attention should be paid to the issues of data accessibility, model transparency, and generalisability. Policy makers should ensure fair availability of the necessary data to train AI-based models and ensure that they develop interpretable AI models that can reduce bias and build trust.

4.2. Processes

One of the current trends in digital health interventions is that implementation fidelity mediates the efficacy. In England, the national COVID-19 Oximetry at home programme, for example, did not reduce mortality because of poor enrolment rates and inconsistent implementation practices [7]. On the other hand, positive results were recorded in a single-centre virtual ward where structured engagement protocols were used by Ward et al. [8]. However, even the most strictly developed models cannot scale without a strong systemic infrastructure that makes uptake possible. In comparison, the models with specialist leadership, like the Heart Failure Virtual Ward, achieved higher results Sankaranarayan et al. [16] however, only in the resource-abundant settings. Van Goor et al. [14] and Zychlinski et al. [15] evidence supported the view that results are dependent on the contextual preparedness rather than on the type of intervention. The artificial-intelligence applications [17] [18] demonstrated the predictive accuracy but were not without concern about bias and generalisability.

4.3. Outputs

The digital models of care, such as virtual wards, hospital at home, and remote patient monitoring, have shown potential but highly contextual effects on hospital utilisation. Though in large comparative analyses, shorter length of stay and no or decreased readmission rates are observed in well-resourced environments [19, 20, 22, 23,24, 25,30]. These models have not always been shown to be effective, and their implementation has been proposed to redistribute as well as to lower aggregate demand in case of insufficient staffing or escalation routes [14,25]. Similarly, post-discharge RPM has the highest DEN, high-risk, actively monitored cohorts. Po et al. [22] and Tan et al. [23] have the highest certainty, although heterogeneity, small-sample studies, and weak control of confounders limit such certainty in specialised populations such as oncology [26]. Stable increases are achieved with the implementation of continuous or patient-triggered device monitoring, a consistent decrease in hospital utilisation observed across RCTs by Jansen et al. [24], which is important to stress that the level of engagement, but not the adoption of technology per se, is what leads to improvements. Economic results also point to the fact that cost-effectiveness cannot be presumed, since capacity gains might go along with increased operational costs when there are suboptimal occupancy, staffing, and digital infrastructure, and the methodological inconsistency prevents generalisability [27,28, 32]. New models say that there is a need to have multidimensional, equity-sensitive metrics other than QALY, which include workforce impact, digital access, and system duplication [29, 33,34, 35].

4.4. Outcomes and System Resilience

The recent national and international guidelines support the fact that virtual wards should be introduced with caution and well-defined patient selection criteria. Policy briefs by the UK point to the fact that the experiences of patients and carers are still positive, but the expectations are usually higher than what clinical potentials can achieve [36,37,38]. Frail elderly assessment demonstrates that it may be beneficial, but with great differences in safety and staff preparedness [39, 40, 41,42,43]. Greater studies warn that there must not be assumptions of universal cost-saving that lack standardised economic data [33, 40]. The results of large-scale RPM studies also indicate fewer admissions and caution that the results are reliant on the resources and digital literacy, as well as monitoring capacity [37,41].

Digital health projects must be transformed to go beyond the response-based, ad hoc, and crisis-driven initiatives to systematic inclusion in existing care pathways. Remote-monitoring, virtual-ward, and artificial-intelligence devices are to be implemented as supplements to traditional methods of care, and they need clear instructions concerning the route of escalation, inclusion criteria, and the individuals who will work with the patients, as well as multidisciplinary team coordination. Future digital health implementations are to be patient-centred and standardised. Policymakers must set minimum requirements on the quality of digital tracking, the equivalence of telehealth reimbursement, and ongoing clinician training to ensure successful digital monitoring. Transparency should maximise trust in AI-driven decision support. New models must prefigure an explainable AI (XAI) system, constantly testing in various groups, and strictly controlled. The ethical regulation of privacy, consent, and accountability must be enforced to avoid harm and reduce the disparities caused by deployment. Lastly, digital-health interventions are to be included in the strategies to improve system resiliency. Research [15] [16] has shown that hospital-at-home and telehealth programmes can potentially reduce acute care demand in times of crisis. The tools cannot be applied only during the pandemic but should be used to be ready to the shocks in the future like ageing, a load of chronic diseases, and health crisis in a climate. The post-pandemic world teaches that despite its potentially powerful nature, digital-health intervention is not transformative: its effectiveness lies on equity, fidelity, context, and ethical integration. It is believed that future healthcare will be hybrid systems where digital and traditional elements are bound together to guarantee efficiency, capacity, equity, transparency, and resilience. Because the included studies employed heterogeneous designs, outcome definitions, and analytical approaches, direct quantitative comparison of effect sizes was not appropriate and may limit the interpretability of cross-study differences. Cumulatively, this review suggests that digital care models can produce a capacity substitution in conditions of implementation fidelity and workforce elasticity.

4.5. Future directions: AI-enabled planning and decision support

AI-based models showed promising predictive performance for hospitalisation and mortality, particularly when multimodal datasets were available, but their role in the current evidence base remains primarily anticipatory rather than implementation-proven. Their contribution is therefore best interpreted as a future direction for digital system planning rather than as established evidence of service-level resource substitution. Key concerns remain data bias, generalisability, infrastructure dependence, and model transparency.

Limitations

The limitations of this review are a few. First, the evidence included was heterogeneous in design, intensity of interventions, and reporting outcomes, restricting a direct comparison between studies and precluding meta-analysis. Second, publication bias and a restriction to the English language might also have limited the evidence base. Third, the protocol of review was not prospectively registered. Fourth, despite primary studies informing the overall synthesis, a few secondary and contextual sources were selected to map information, which arguably minimises interpretive purity but may improve policy relevance. Lastly, since most studies have been conducted in well-resourced systems, we should be careful to generalise conclusions to less-resourced settings or to the future after the pandemic.

Conclusion

The review indicates that virtual wards, hospital-at-home care, and remote services could reduce length of stay and eliminate avoidable readmissions, especially when they focus on high-risk populations and have well-defined escalation routes. Nevertheless, not all of them are effective, and the inadequately-resourced implementation would not decrease the healthcare demand but could increase the digital inequalities instead. The economic performance might still be bright and unstable because of fluctuating costing systems and immeasurable personnel and infrastructure strains. Thus, cost-saving solutions in the form of digital care models should not be scaled automatically but should be applied selectively with a strong evaluation, equity protection, and standardised clinical and economic outcomes. Most consistent clinical and resource-related benefits were observed in studies rated as high or moderate quality. Evidence derived from low-quality studies was not used to inform policy or implementation recommendations. Lastly, this review suggests that digital care models do not automatically reduce system pressure; rather, they generate meaningful capacity substitution only when implementation fidelity, workforce elasticity, and supportive digital infrastructure are present.

Funding

None.

Declaration of Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests. All authors contributed to the manuscript’s conception, design, and writing.

References

[1] Jat AS, Grønli TM. Harnessing the digital revolution: a comprehensive review of mHealth applications for remote monitoring in transforming healthcare delivery. In International Conference on Mobile Web and Intelligent Information Systems 2023 Aug 3 (pp. 55-67). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.14190

[2] Getachew E, Adebeta T, Muzazu SG, Charlie L, Said B, Tesfahunei HA, Wanjiru CL, Acam J, Kajogoo VD, Solomon S, Atim MG. Digital health in the era of COVID-19: Reshaping the next generation of healthcare. Frontiers in public health. 2023 Feb 15; 11:942703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.942703

[3] Periáñez Á, Fernández Del Río A, Nazarov I, Jané E, Hassan M, Rastogi A, Tang D. The digital transformation in health: How AI can improve the performance of healthcare systems. Healthcare systems & Reform. 2024 Dec 17;10(2):2387138. https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2024.2387138

[4] Chang JE, Lai AY, Gupta A, Nguyen AM, Berry CA, Shelley DR. Rapid transition to telehealth and the digital divide: implications for primary care access and equity in a post‐COVID era. The Milbank Quarterly. 2021 Jun;99(2):340-68. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/1468-0009.12509?casa_token=rml2GzKuiYMAAAAA:JfpQU8Y2MJ9OLVE72aeoGDjZTMFDPn1ze7LuWRTr5uQDFyHqijVu301jFPH0AOqw4nGY1WFUy8ivc1U

[5] Ezeamii VC, Okobi OE, Wambai-Sani H, Perera GS, Zaynieva S, Okonkwo CC, Ohaiba MM, William-Enemali PC, Obodo OR, Obiefuna NG. Revolutionising healthcare: how telemedicine improves patient outcomes and expands care access. Cureus. 2024 Jul 5;16(7). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.63881

[6] Härkönen H, Lakoma S, Verho A, Torkki P, Leskelä RL, Pennanen P, Laukka E, Jansson M. Impact of digital services on healthcare and social welfare: An umbrella review. International journal of nursing studies. 2024 Apr 1; 152:104692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104692

[7] Li J, Me RC, Ahmad FA, Zhu Q. Investigating the application of IoT mobile app and healthcare services for diabetic elderly: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2025 Apr 15;20(4):e0321090. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321090

[8] Ward, T.J., Mavilakandy, A., Danns, J., Tsaknis, G. and Reddy, R.V., 2022. Outcomes from a virtual ward delivering oxygen at home for patients recovering from COVID-19: a real-world observational study. Clinical Medicine, 22(3), pp.197-202. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2021-0512

[9] Zrubka Z, Champion A, Holtorf AP, Di Bidino R, Earla JR, Boltyenkov AT, Tabata-Kelly M, Asche C, Burrell A. The PICOTS-ComTeC framework for defining digital health interventions: an ISPOR special interest group report. Value in Health. 2024 Apr 1;27(4):383-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.01.009

[10] Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual review of psychology. 2019 Jan 4;70(1):747-70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

[11] Parums DV. Review articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2021 Aug 23;27:e934475-1. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.934475

[12] McKenna-Plumley PE, Groarke JM, Turner RN, Yang K. Experiences of loneliness: a study protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative literature. Systematic Reviews. 2020 Dec 6;9(1):284. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01544-x

[13] Beaney, T., Clarke, J., Alboksmaty, A., Flott, K., Fowler, A., Benger, J., Aylin, P.P., Elkin, S., Neves, A.L., and Darzi, A., 2022. Population-level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in people with COVID-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design. Emergency Medicine Journal, 39(8), pp.575-582. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212378

[14] van Goor HM, Breteler MJ, van Loon K, de Hond TA, Reitsma JB, Zwart DL, Kalkman CJ, Kaasjager KA. Remote hospital care for recovering COVID-19 patients using telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021 Dec 17;10(24):5940. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245940

[15] Zychlinski N, Fluss R, Goldberg Y, Zubli D, Barkai G, Zimlichman E, Segal G. Tele-medicine-controlled hospital at home is associated with better outcomes than hospital stay. Plos one. 2024 Aug 19;19(8):e0309077. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309077

[16] Sankaranarayanan R, Rasoul D, Murphy N, Kelly A, Nyjo S, Jackson C, O’Connor J, Almond P, Jose N, West J, Kaur R. Telehealth‐aided outpatient management of acute heart failure in a specialist virtual ward compared with standard care. ESC Heart Failure. 2024 Dec;11(6):4172-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.15003

[17] Tariq A, Celi LA, Newsome JM, Purkayastha S, Bhatia NK, Trivedi H, Gichoya JW, Banerjee I. Patient-specific COVID-19 resource utilisation prediction using fusion AI model. NPJ digital medicine. 2021 Jun 3;4(1):94. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00461-0

[18] Morís DI, de Moura J, Marcos PJ, Rey EM, Novo J, Ortega M. Efficient clinical decision-making process via AI-based multimodal data fusion: A COVID-19 case study. Heliyon. 2024 Oct 30;10(20). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38642

[19] Shi C, Dumville J, Rubinstein F, Norman G, Ullah A, Bashir S, Bower P, Vardy ER. Inpatient-level care at home delivered by virtual wards and hospital at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions and their components. BMC Medicine. 2024 Apr 2;22(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03312-3

[20] Taylor ML, Thomas EE, Snoswell CL, Smith AC, Caffery LJ. Does remote patient monitoring reduce acute care use? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 1;11(3):e040232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020- 040232

[21] Smedslund G, Østerås N, Hestevik CH. Effects of remote patient monitoring on health care utilisation in patients with noncommunicable diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2025 Oct 1;13:e68464. https://doi.org/10.2196/68464

[22] Po HW, Chu YC, Tsai HC, Lin CL, Chen CY, Ma MH. Efficacy of remote health monitoring in reducing hospital readmissions among high-risk postdischarge patients: prospective cohort study. JMIR Formative Research. 2024 Sep 13;8:e53455. https://doi.org/10.2196/53455

[23] Tan SY, Sumner J, Wang Y, Wenjun Yip A. A systematic review of the impacts of remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions on safety, adherence, quality-of-life, and cost-related outcomes. NPJ Digital Medicine. 2024 Jul 18;7(1):192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01182-w

[24] Jansen AJ, Peters GM, Kooij L, Doggen CJ, van Harten WH. Device-based monitoring in digital care and its impact on hospital service use. npj Digital Medicine. 2025 Jan 8;8(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01427-8

[25] Oliver D. David Oliver: With virtual wards, NHS England is overpromising once again. bmj. 2023 Nov 29;383. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2787

[26] Rockey-Bartlett C, Morelli J, Coffel M, Geracitano J, Lafata JE, Khairat S. Effect of remote patient monitoring on healthcare use among patients with cancer: A systematic review. Digital Health. 2025 Oct;11:20552076251384220.

[27] Gentili A, Failla G, Melnyk A, Puleo V, Tanna GL, Ricciardi W, Cascini F. The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: a systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in public health. 2022 Aug 11;10:787135.

[28] Zakiyah N, Marulin D, Alfaqeeh M, Puspitasari IM, Lestari K, Lim KK, Fox-Rushby J. Economic evaluations of digital health interventions for patients with heart failure: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research. 2024 Apr 30;26:e53500. https://doi.org/10.2196/53500

[29] Islam F, Sowada C, Siqeca F, Sabbe M, Milisen K, Kocot E. Economic evaluations and financial consequences related to the use of telehealth services in older adults seeking unplanned care: a scoping review. BMC Digital Health. 2025 Sep 17;3(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-025-00199-9

[30] Vo LK, Carter HE, McPhail SM, McGowan K, Wallis S, Atkinson K, Allen MJ. Implementation of a Virtual Hospital in the Home Service for Patients With COVID-19 in Queensland, Australia: Mixed Methods Evaluation Using the RE-AIM Framework. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2025 Sep 19;27:e73749. https://doi.org/10.2196/73749

[31] Yahya F, Cooper M, Nazar H. Hospital at home (virtual wards): developing a logic model and dark logic model. BMC Health Services Research. 2025 May 17;25(1):714. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12872-w

[32] Jalilian A, Sedda L, Unsworth A, Farrier M. Length of stay and economic sustainability of virtual ward care in a medium-sized hospital of the UK: a retrospective longitudinal study. BMJ Open. 2024 Jan 1;14(1):e081378. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12872-w

[33] Benedetto V, Filipe L, Harris C, Spencer J, Hickson C, Clegg A. Analytical frameworks and outcome measures in economic evaluations of digital health interventions: a methodological systematic review. Medical Decision Making. 2023 Jan;43(1):125-38. https://doi.dox.org/10.1177/0272989X221132741

[34] Santos AR, Sampaio F, Londral AR, Perelman J. Mapping methodologies for economic assessment of digital health technologies: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 1;15(7):e099933. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099933

[35] Alansari AN, Zaazouee MS, Messaoud M, Mani S, Elshanbary AA, Mohamed HY. Impact of telemedicine on mortality, hospital admissions, and length of stay in pediatric emergencies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2025 Aug 27;18(1):160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-025-00968-3

[36] National Health Service (NHS) — Strategy Unit. Virtual Wards Evaluation: Patients’ and Unpaid Carers’ perspectives. 2025. Available from: https://strategyunitwm.nhs.uk

[37] NHS Confederation. Realising the potential of virtual wards. Policy brief. 2023. Available from: https://www.nhsconfed.org

[38] National Institutes of Health (NIH). Virtual Medicine Wards and Hospital-at-Home Programs. Research & Analysis. NCBI Bookshelf. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books

[39] Cureus. The effectiveness of virtual wards compared to inpatient beds in frail older patients: systematic review. 2025. Available from: https://www.cureus.com

[40] NHS England; Strategy Unit. Evidence briefs and guidance on virtual wards/hospital-at-home. 2024–2025. Available from: https://ewin.nhs.uk

[41] Liebert; Telemedicine Journal. Impact of a large-scale RPM program on admissions: observational analyses. 2024. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com

[42] Benedetto V, et al. Digital health interventions economic evaluation: systematic review. 2022. AAM. Available from: University of Central Lancashire repository. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.08393

[43] British Geriatrics Society (BGS). Virtual wards and hospital at home for older people: guidance. 2022. Available from: https://www.bgs.org.uk