Kristian Kidholm1, Maja Kjær Rasmussen1, Jan Jesper Andreasen2,3, John Hansen4, Gitte Nielsen5, Helle Spindler6, Birthe Dinesen7. 1. 1 Center for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital , Odense, Denmark . 2. 2 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital , Aalborg, Denmark . 3. 3 Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University , Aalborg, Denmark . 4. 4 Laboratory for Cardio-Technology, Medical Informatics Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University , Aalborg, Denmark . 5. 5 Department of Cardiology, Vendsyssel Hospital , Hjoerring, Denmark . 6. 6 Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus Graduate School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University , Aarhus, Denmark . 7. 7 Telehealth and Telerehabilitation, Laboratory of Assistive Technologies, SMI ®, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University , Aalborg, Denmark .
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Cardiac rehabilitation can reduce mortality of patients with cardiovascular disease, but a frequently low participation rate in rehabilitation programs has been found globally. The objective of the Teledialog study was to assess the cost-utility (CU) of a cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) program. The aim of the intervention was to increase the patients' participation in the CTR program. At discharge, an individualized 3-month rehabilitation plan was formulated for each patient. At home, the patients measured their own blood pressure, pulse, weight, and steps taken for 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis was carried out together with a randomized controlled trial with 151 patients during 2012-2014. Costs of the intervention were estimated with a health sector perspective following international guidelines for CU. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. RESULTS: The rehabilitation activities were approximately the same in the two groups, but the number of contacts with the physiotherapist was higher among the intervention group. The mean total cost per patient was €1,700 higher in the intervention group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gain was higher in the intervention group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The incremental CU ratio was more than €400,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the rehabilitation activities increased, the program does not appear to be cost-effective. The intervention itself was not costly (less than €500), and increasing the number of patients may show reduced costs of the devices and make the CTR more cost-effective. Telerehabilitation can increase participation, but the intervention, in its current form, does not appear to be cost-effective.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation can reduce mortality of patients with cardiovascular disease, but a frequently low participation rate in rehabilitation programs has been found globally. The objective of the Teledialog study was to assess the cost-utility (CU) of a cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) program. The aim of the intervention was to increase the patients' participation in the CTR program. At discharge, an individualized 3-month rehabilitation plan was formulated for each patient. At home, the patients measured their own blood pressure, pulse, weight, and steps taken for 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis was carried out together with a randomized controlled trial with 151 patients during 2012-2014. Costs of the intervention were estimated with a health sector perspective following international guidelines for CU. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. RESULTS: The rehabilitation activities were approximately the same in the two groups, but the number of contacts with the physiotherapist was higher among the intervention group. The mean total cost per patient was €1,700 higher in the intervention group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gain was higher in the intervention group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The incremental CU ratio was more than €400,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the rehabilitation activities increased, the program does not appear to be cost-effective. The intervention itself was not costly (less than €500), and increasing the number of patients may show reduced costs of the devices and make the CTR more cost-effective. Telerehabilitation can increase participation, but the intervention, in its current form, does not appear to be cost-effective.
Authors: Ross Arena; Mark Williams; Daniel E Forman; Lawrence P Cahalin; Lola Coke; Jonathan Myers; Larry Hamm; Penny Kris-Etherton; Reed Humphrey; Vera Bittner; Carl J Lavie Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Birna Bjarnason-Wehrens; Hannah McGee; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Massimo F Piepoli; Werner Benzer; Jean-Paul Schmid; Paul Dendale; Nana-Goar V Pogosova; Dumitru Zdrenghea; Josef Niebauer; Miguel Mendes Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Date: 2010-08
Authors: Heinrich Körtke; Hans Stromeyer; Armin Zittermann; Norbert Buhr; Elke Zimmermann; Elmar Wienecke; Reiner Körfer Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: R Jay Widmer; Nerissa M Collins; C Scott Collins; Colin P West; Lilach O Lerman; Amir Lerman Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Grace Dibben; James Faulkner; Neil Oldridge; Karen Rees; David R Thompson; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Rod S Taylor Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-11-06
Authors: Rutger W M Brouwers; Jos J Kraal; Simone C J Traa; Ruud F Spee; Laurence M L C Oostveen; Hareld M C Kemps Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Gemma E Shields; Adrian Wells; Patrick Doherty; Anthony Heagerty; Deborah Buck; Linda M Davies Journal: Heart Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Helle Spindler; Kasper Leerskov; Katrine Joensson; Gitte Nielsen; Jan Jesper Andreasen; Birthe Dinesen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Centaine L Snoswell; Monica L Taylor; Tracy A Comans; Anthony C Smith; Leonard C Gray; Liam J Caffery Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Carolina Santiago de Araújo Pio; Gabriela Ss Chaves; Philippa Davies; Rod S Taylor; Sherry L Grace Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-02-01
Authors: Lan Gao; Ralph Maddison; Jonathan Rawstorn; Kylie Ball; Brian Oldenburg; Clara Chow; Sarah McNaughton; Karen Lamb; John Amerena; Voltaire Nadurata; Christopher Neil; Stuart Cameron; Marj Moodie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 2.692