Mahshid Moghei1, Karam Turk-Adawi2, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai3, Nizal Sarrafzadegan4, Paul Oh5, Caroline Chessex5, Sherry L Grace6. 1. School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, Canada. 2. Department of Public Health, Qatar University, Al-Doha, Qatar. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: nsarrafzadegan@gmail.com. 5. University Health Network, University of Toronto, Canada. 6. School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, Canada; University Health Network, University of Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and its cost-effectiveness, it is not widely received. Arguably, capacity could be greatly increased if lower-cost models were implemented. The aims of this review were to describe: the costs associated with CR delivery, approaches to reduce these costs, and associated implications. METHODS: Upon finalizing the PICO statement, information scientists were enlisted to develop the search strategy of MEDLINE, Embase, CDSR, Google Scholar and Scopus. Citations identified were considered for inclusion by the first author. Extracted cost data were summarized in tabular format and qualitatively synthesized. RESULTS: There is wide variability in the cost of CR delivery around the world, and patients pay out-of-pocket for some or all of services in 55% of countries. Supervised CR costs in high-income countries ranged from PPP$294 (Purchasing Power Parity; 2016 United States Dollars) in the United Kingdom to PPP$12,409 in Italy, and in middle-income countries ranged from PPP$146 in Venezuela to PPP$1095 in Brazil. Costs relate to facilities, personnel, and session dose. Delivering CR using information and communication technology (mean cost PPP$753/patient/program), lowering the dose and using lower-cost personnel and equipment are important strategies to consider in containing costs, however few explicitly low-cost models are available in the literature. CONCLUSION: More research is needed regarding the costs to deliver CR in community settings, the cost-effectiveness of CR in most countries, and the economic impact of return-to-work with CR participation. A low-cost model of CR should be standardized and tested for efficacy across multiple healthcare systems.
BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and its cost-effectiveness, it is not widely received. Arguably, capacity could be greatly increased if lower-cost models were implemented. The aims of this review were to describe: the costs associated with CR delivery, approaches to reduce these costs, and associated implications. METHODS: Upon finalizing the PICO statement, information scientists were enlisted to develop the search strategy of MEDLINE, Embase, CDSR, Google Scholar and Scopus. Citations identified were considered for inclusion by the first author. Extracted cost data were summarized in tabular format and qualitatively synthesized. RESULTS: There is wide variability in the cost of CR delivery around the world, and patients pay out-of-pocket for some or all of services in 55% of countries. Supervised CR costs in high-income countries ranged from PPP$294 (Purchasing Power Parity; 2016 United States Dollars) in the United Kingdom to PPP$12,409 in Italy, and in middle-income countries ranged from PPP$146 in Venezuela to PPP$1095 in Brazil. Costs relate to facilities, personnel, and session dose. Delivering CR using information and communication technology (mean cost PPP$753/patient/program), lowering the dose and using lower-cost personnel and equipment are important strategies to consider in containing costs, however few explicitly low-cost models are available in the literature. CONCLUSION: More research is needed regarding the costs to deliver CR in community settings, the cost-effectiveness of CR in most countries, and the economic impact of return-to-work with CR participation. A low-cost model of CR should be standardized and tested for efficacy across multiple healthcare systems.
Authors: Karam Turk-Adawi; Marta Supervia; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez; Ella Pesah; Rongjing Ding; Raquel R Britto; Birna Bjarnason-Wehrens; Wayne Derman; Ana Abreu; Abraham S Babu; Claudia Anchique Santos; Seng Khiong Jong; Lucky Cuenza; Tee Joo Yeo; Dawn Scantlebury; Karl Andersen; Graciela Gonzalez; Vojislav Giga; Dusko Vulic; Eleonora Vataman; Jacqueline Cliff; Evangelia Kouidi; Ilker Yagci; Chul Kim; Briseida Benaim; Eduardo Rivas Estany; Rosalia Fernandez; Basuni Radi; Dan Gaita; Attila Simon; Ssu-Yuan Chen; Brendon Roxburgh; Juan Castillo Martin; Lela Maskhulia; Gerard Burdiat; Richard Salmon; Hermes Lomelí; Masoumeh Sadeghi; Eliska Sovova; Arto Hautala; Egle Tamuleviciute-Prasciene; Marco Ambrosetti; Lis Neubeck; Elad Asher; Hareld Kemps; Zbigniew Eysymontt; Stefan Farsky; Jo Hayward; Eva Prescott; Susan Dawkes; Claudio Santibanez; Cecilia Zeballos; Bruno Pavy; Anna Kiessling; Nizal Sarrafzadegan; Carolyn Baer; Randal Thomas; Dayi Hu; Sherry L Grace Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2019-07-03
Authors: Mohiul I Chowdhury; Karam Turk-Adawi; Abraham Samuel Babu; Gabriela Lime de Melo Ghisi; Pamela Seron; Tee Joo Yeo; Jamal Uddin; Martin Heine; Marianna Garcia Saldivia; Evangelia Kouidi; Masoumeh Sadeghi; Raghdah Aljehani; Sherry L Grace Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2022-01-11
Authors: Pamela Serón; Maria J Oliveros; Gabriel N Marzuca-Nassr; Fernando Lanas; Gladys Morales; Claudia Román; Sergio R Muñoz; Nicolás Saavedra; Sherry L Grace Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stefano Bonnini; Gianni Mazzoni; Michela Borghesi; Giorgio Chiaranda; Jonathan Myers; Simona Mandini; Andrea Raisi; Sabrina Masotti; Giovanni Grazzi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 2.655