Molly Jacobs1, Patrick M Briley2,3, Heather Harris Wright2,3, Charles Ellis2,3. 1. Department of Health Services and Information Management. East Carolina University, USA. 2. Communication Equity and Outcomes Laboratory, East Carolina University, USA. 3. Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, East Carolina University, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have reported information related to the cost-effectiveness of traditional face-to-face treatments for aphasia. The emergence and demand for telepractice approaches to aphasia treatment has resulted in an urgent need to understand the costs and cost-benefits of this approach. METHODS: Eighteen stroke survivors with aphasia completed community-based aphasia telerehabilitation treatment, utilizing the Language-Oriented Treatment (LOT) delivered via Webex videoconferencing program. Marginal benefits to treatment were calculated as the change in Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R) score pre- and post-treatment and marginal cost of treatment was calculated as the relationship between change in WAB-R aphasia quotient (AQ) and the average cost per treatment. Controlling for demographic variables, Bayesian estimation evaluated the primary contributors to WAB-R change and assessed cost-effectiveness of treatment by aphasia type. RESULTS: Thirteen out of 18 participants experienced significant improvement in WAB-R AQ following telerehabilitation delivered therapy. Compared to anomic aphasia (reference group), those with conduction aphasia had relatively similar levels of improvement whereas those with Broca's aphasia had smaller improvement. Those with global aphasia had the largest improvement. Each one-point of improvement cost between US$89 and US$864 for those who improved (mean = US$200) depending on aphasia type/severity. DISCUSSION: Individuals with severe aphasia may have the greatest gains per unit cost from treatment. Both improvement magnitude and the cost per unit of improvement were driven by aphasia type, severity and race. Economies of scale to aphasia treatment-cost may be minimized by treating a variety of types of aphasia at various levels of severity.
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have reported information related to the cost-effectiveness of traditional face-to-face treatments for aphasia. The emergence and demand for telepractice approaches to aphasia treatment has resulted in an urgent need to understand the costs and cost-benefits of this approach. METHODS: Eighteen stroke survivors with aphasia completed community-based aphasia telerehabilitation treatment, utilizing the Language-Oriented Treatment (LOT) delivered via Webex videoconferencing program. Marginal benefits to treatment were calculated as the change in Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R) score pre- and post-treatment and marginal cost of treatment was calculated as the relationship between change in WAB-R aphasia quotient (AQ) and the average cost per treatment. Controlling for demographic variables, Bayesian estimation evaluated the primary contributors to WAB-R change and assessed cost-effectiveness of treatment by aphasia type. RESULTS: Thirteen out of 18 participants experienced significant improvement in WAB-R AQ following telerehabilitation delivered therapy. Compared to anomic aphasia (reference group), those with conduction aphasia had relatively similar levels of improvement whereas those with Broca's aphasia had smaller improvement. Those with global aphasia had the largest improvement. Each one-point of improvement cost between US$89 and US$864 for those who improved (mean = US$200) depending on aphasia type/severity. DISCUSSION: Individuals with severe aphasia may have the greatest gains per unit cost from treatment. Both improvement magnitude and the cost per unit of improvement were driven by aphasia type, severity and race. Economies of scale to aphasia treatment-cost may be minimized by treating a variety of types of aphasia at various levels of severity.