Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation intervention: a systematic review

L. Batalik, K. Filakova, M. Sladeckova, F. Dosbaba, J. Su, G. Pepera

. 2023 ; 59 (2) : 248-258. [pub] 20230124

Language English Country Italy

Document type Systematic Review, Journal Article

INTRODUCTION: Alternatives 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 ACQUISITION: PubMed 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 SYNTHESIS: Out 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. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth 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.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23010571
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230801132513.0
007      
ta
008      
230718s2023 it f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.23736/S1973-9087.23.07773-0 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36692413
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a it
100    1_
$a Batalik, Ladislav $u Department of Rehabilitation, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic - batalik.ladislav@fnbrno.cz $u Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic - batalik.ladislav@fnbrno.cz
245    14
$a The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation intervention: a systematic review / $c L. Batalik, K. Filakova, M. Sladeckova, F. Dosbaba, J. Su, G. Pepera
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION: Alternatives 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 ACQUISITION: PubMed 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 SYNTHESIS: Out 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. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth 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.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a analýza nákladů a výnosů $7 D003362
650    12
$a telerehabilitace $7 D000069350
650    _2
$a cvičení $7 D015444
650    12
$a telemedicína $7 D017216
650    12
$a kardiovaskulární rehabilitace $7 D000072038
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Filakova, Katerina $u Department of Rehabilitation, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic $u Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Second Faculty of Medicine, Motol University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sladeckova, Michaela $u Department of Rehabilitation, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic $u Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic $u Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dosbaba, Filip $u Department of Rehabilitation, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Su, Jingjing $u School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
700    1_
$a Pepera, Garyfallia $u School of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Clinical Exercise Physiology and Rehabilitation Laboratory, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece
773    0_
$w MED00174347 $t European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine $x 1973-9095 $g Roč. 59, č. 2 (2023), s. 248-258
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36692413 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230718 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230801132510 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1963162 $s 1196836
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 59 $c 2 $d 248-258 $e 20230124 $i 1973-9095 $m European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine $n Eur. j. phys. rehabil. med. $x MED00174347
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230718

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...