Dataset Information

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Program: The Teledialog Project.

ABSTRACT: 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.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.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.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.

SUBMITTER: Kidholm K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4939376 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Program: The Teledialog Project.

Kidholm Kristian K Rasmussen Maja Kjær MK Andreasen Jan Jesper JJ Hansen John J Nielsen Gitte G Spindler Helle H Dinesen Birthe B

Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association 20151229 7

<h4>Background</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 26713491

Similar Datasets

Project description:To assess cost-effectiveness and cost utility of telerehabilitation (TR) versus standard rehabilitation (SR) after total knee replacement (TKR).Markov decision modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis based on patient-level and secondary data sources employing Italian National Health Service (NHS; Ita-NHS) and Society perspectives.Primary care units (PCUs) in Italy.Patients discharged after TKR.Mixed SR-TR service (10 face-to-face sessions and 10 telesessions) versus SR (20 face-to-face sessions)The incremental cost per additional knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and per QALY gained by SR-TR compared with SR. Second, we considered the probability of being cost-effective and the probability of being more effective and less expensive.TR appears to be the cost-effective in the base case and in all of the considered scenarios, but is no longer more effective and less expensive if transportation costs are excluded. Comparing SR-TR with SR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) adopting the Ita-NHS perspective for the base case was -€117/ROM gained. The cost-effectiveness probability for SR-TR was 0.98 (ceiling ratio: €50/ROM), while the joint probability of being more effective and less expensive was 0.87. Assuming that TR would increase health-related quality of life (HRQOL) utilities by 2.5%, the ICER adopting Ita-NHS perspective is -€960/QALY (cost-effectiveness probability: 1; ceiling ratio: €30 000/QALY). All the performed sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions, but if transportation costs were excluded, the probability for SR-TR of being more clinically effective and less expensive reduced to 0.56.The analysis suggested SR-TR to be cost-effective, even less expensive and more effective if the PCUs provide ambulance transportations. However, the uncertainty related to TR costs, HRQOL and long-term clinical outcomes raises important topics for future research, which should be addressed to confirm our estimates.ISRCTN45837371.

Project description:BackgroundTelerehabilitation could benefit a large population by increasing adherence to rehabilitation protocols.ObjectiveOur objective was to review and discuss the use of cost-utility approaches in economic evaluations of telerehabilitation interventions.MethodsA review of the literature on PubMed, Scopus, Centres for Review and Dissemination databases (including the HTA database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last search on February 8, 2021) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were defined in accordance with the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design) system: the included studies had to evaluate patients in rehabilitation therapy for all diseases and disorders (population) through exercise-based telerehabilitation (intervention) and had to have a control group that received face-to-face rehabilitation (comparison), and these studies had to evaluate effectiveness through gain in quality of life (outcome) and used the design of randomized and controlled clinical studies (study).ResultsWe included 11 economic evaluations, of which 6 concerned cardiovascular diseases. Several types of interventions were assessed as telerehabilitation, consisting in monitoring of rehabilitation at home (monitored by physicians) or a rehabilitation program with exercise and an educational intervention at home alone. All studies were based on randomized clinical trials and used a validated health-related quality of life instrument to describe patients' health states. Four evaluations used the EQ-5D, 1 used the EQ-5D-5L, 2 used the EQ-5D-3L, 3 used the Short-Form Six-Dimension questionnaire, and 1 used the 36-item Short Form survey. The mean quality-adjusted life years gained using telerehabilitation services varied from -0.09 to 0.89. These results were reported in terms of the probability that the intervention was cost-effective at different thresholds for willingness-to-pay values. Most studies showed results about telerehabilitation as dominant (ie, more effective and less costly) together with superiority or noninferiority in outcomes.ConclusionsThere is evidence to support telerehabilitation as a cost-effective intervention for a large population among different disease areas. There is a need for conducting cost-effectiveness studies in countries because the available evidence has limited generalizability in such countries.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021248785; https://tinyurl.com/4xurdvwf.

Project description:BackgroundTraditional cardiac rehabilitation programs are centre-based and clinically supervised, with their safety and effectiveness well established. Notwithstanding the established benefits, cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilised. A possible alternative would be a hybrid approach where both centre-based and tele-based methods are combined to deliver cardiac rehabilitation to eligible patients. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of a hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation and if it should be recommended to be implemented in the Australian context.MethodsFollowing a comprehensive literature search, we chose the Telerehab III trial intervention that investigated the effectiveness of a long-term hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation program. We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the Telerehab III trial using a Markov process. The model included stable cardiac disease and hospitalisation health states and simulations were run using one-month cycles over a five-year time horizon. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $AU 28,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For the base analysis, we assumed that 80% completed the programme. We tested the robustness of the results using probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses.ResultsTelerehab III intervention was more effective but more costly and was not cost-effective, at a threshold of $28,000 per QALY. For every 1,000 patients who undergo cardiac rehabilitation, employing the telerehabilitation intervention would cost $650,000 more, and 5.7 QALYs would be gained, over five years, compared to current practice. Under probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the intervention was cost-effective in only 18% of simulations. Similarly, if the intervention compliance was increased to 90%, it was still unlikely to be cost-effective.ConclusionHybrid cardiac telerehabilitation is highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared to the current practice in Australia. Exploration of alternative models of delivering cardiac telerehabilitation is still required. The results presented in this study are useful for policymakers wanting to make informed decisions about investment in hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation programs.

Project description:IntroductionAlternatives such as remotely delivered therapy in the home environment or telehealth represent an opportunity to increase overall cardiac rehabilitation (CR) utilization. Implementing alternatives into regular practice is the next step in development; however, the cost aspect is essential for policymakers. Limited economic budgets lead to cost-effectiveness analyses before implementation. They are appropriate in cases where there is evidence that the compared intervention provides a similar health benefit to usual care. This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of exercise-based telehealth CR interventions compared to standard exercise-based CR.Evidence acquisitionPubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to August 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials assessing patients undergoing telehealth CR. The intervention was compared to standard CR protocols. The primary intent was to identify the cost-effectiveness. Interventions that met the criteria were home-based telehealth CR interventions delivered by information and communications technology (telephone, computer, internet, or videoconferencing) and included the results of an economic evaluation, comparing interventions in terms of cost-effectiveness, utility, costs and benefits, or cost-minimization analysis. The systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO Registry (CRD42022322531).Evidence synthesisOut of 1525 identified studies, 67 articles were assessed for eligibility, and, at the end of the screening process, 12 studies were included in the present systematic review. Most studies (92%) included in this systematic review found strong evidence that exercise-based telehealth CR is cost-effective. Compared to CBCR, there were no major differences, except for three studies evaluating a significant difference in average cost per patient and intervention costs in favor of telehealth CR.ConclusionsTelehealth CR based on exercise is as cost-effective as CBCR interventions. Funding telehealth CR by third-party payers may promote patient participation to increase overall CR utilization. High-quality research is needed to identify the most cost-effective design.

Project description:BackgroundEconomic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost-utility and cost-benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education intervention (NE), physical activity intervention (PA) and comprehensive intervention (both NE and PA, CNP) with secondary data analysis of one randomized controlled trial.MethodsThe standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were employed from a societal perspective to the health outcome and costs that are attributable to the intervention. NE, PA and CNP were carried out separately for 2 semesters for childhood obesity interventions in primary schools. The additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the interventions were measured as the health outcome. A cost-utility ratio (CUR) and A cost-benefit ratio (CBR) was calculated as the ratio of implementation costs to the total medical and productivity loss costs averted by the interventions.ResultsThe CUR and CBR were ¥11,505.9 ($1646.0) per QALY and ¥1.2 benefit per ¥1 cost respectively, and the net saving was ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). The CUR and CBR for nutrition education and physical activity interventions were ¥21,316.4 ($3049.6) per QALY and ¥0.7 benefit per ¥1 cost, ¥28,417.1 ($4065.4) per QALY and ¥0.4 benefit per ¥1 cost, respectively (in 2019 RMB). Compared with PA intervention, the ICERs were ¥10,335.2 ($1478.6) and 4626.3 ($661.8) for CNP and NE respectively. The CBR was ¥1.2, 0.7, and 0.4 benefits per ¥1 cost for CNP, NE, and PA interventions, respectively. Net estimated savings were achieved only through CNP intervention, amounting to ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9).ConclusionsComprehensive school-based obesity intervention is a beneficial investment that is both cost-effective and cost saving. Compared with PA intervention, both CNP and NE intervention were more cost-effective.

Dataset Information

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Program: The Teledialog Project.

Publications

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Program: The Teledialog Project.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets