Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2015
Cost-Utility Analysis of a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Program: The Teledialog Project.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kidholm Kristian, Rasmussen Maja Kjær, Andreasen Jan Jesper, Hansen John, Nielsen Gitte, Spindler Helle, Dinesen Birthe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: 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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.