Rita Hwang1, Norman R Morris2, Allison Mandrusiak3, Jared Bruning4, Robyn Peters5, Dariusz Korczyk6, Trevor Russell3. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; Physiotherapy, School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. Electronic address: r.hwang@uq.net.au. 2. The School of Allied Health Sciences and Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; Allied Health Research Collaborative, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 3. Physiotherapy, School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 4. Department of Physiotherapy, Heart Failure Support Service, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 5. Department of Cardiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 6. Department of Cardiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whilst home-based telerehabilitation has been shown non-inferior to traditional centre-based rehabilitation in patients with chronic heart failure, its economic sustainability remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the cost-utility of a home-based telerehabilitation program. METHODS: A comparative, trial-based, incremental cost-utility analysis was conducted from a health care provider's perspective. We collected data as part of a multi-centre, two-arm, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial with 6 months follow-up. There were 53 participants randomised to either a telerehabilitation program (consisting of 12 weeks of group-based exercise and education delivered into the home via online videoconferencing) or a traditional centre-based program. Health care costs (including personnel, equipment and hospital readmissions due to heart failure) were extracted from health system records, and calculated in Australian dollars using 2013 as the base year. Health utilities were measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Estimates were presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on bootstrapping. Costs and utility differences were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS:Total health care costs per participant were significantly lower in the telerehabilitation group (-$1,590, 95% CI: -2,822, -359) during the 6 months. No significant differences in quality-adjusted life years (0, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.05) were seen between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure telerehabilitation appears to be less costly and as effective for the health care provider as traditional centre-based rehabilitation. Crown
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Whilst home-based telerehabilitation has been shown non-inferior to traditional centre-based rehabilitation in patients with chronic heart failure, its economic sustainability remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the cost-utility of a home-based telerehabilitation program. METHODS: A comparative, trial-based, incremental cost-utility analysis was conducted from a health care provider's perspective. We collected data as part of a multi-centre, two-arm, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial with 6 months follow-up. There were 53 participants randomised to either a telerehabilitation program (consisting of 12 weeks of group-based exercise and education delivered into the home via online videoconferencing) or a traditional centre-based program. Health care costs (including personnel, equipment and hospital readmissions due to heart failure) were extracted from health system records, and calculated in Australian dollars using 2013 as the base year. Health utilities were measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Estimates were presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on bootstrapping. Costs and utility differences were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: Total health care costs per participant were significantly lower in the telerehabilitation group (-$1,590, 95% CI: -2,822, -359) during the 6 months. No significant differences in quality-adjusted life years (0, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.05) were seen between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:Heart failure telerehabilitation appears to be less costly and as effective for the health care provider as traditional centre-based rehabilitation. Crown
Authors: Randal J Thomas; Cara E Petersen; Thomas P Olson; Alexis L Beatty; Rongjing Ding; Marta Supervia Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 3.646
Authors: Sandra Sülz; Hilco J van Elten; Marjan Askari; Anne Marie Weggelaar-Jansen; Robbert Huijsman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Judith Byaruhanga; Prince Atorkey; Matthew McLaughlin; Alison Brown; Emma Byrnes; Christine Paul; John Wiggers; Flora Tzelepis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Gemma E Shields; Adrian Wells; Patrick Doherty; David Reeves; Lora Capobianco; Anthony Heagerty; Deborah Buck; Linda M Davies Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 2.692
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