Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/3023
Title: Telerehabilitation compared with center-based pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease.
Author: Burge, A. T.
Cox, N. S.
Holland, A. E.
McDonald, C. F.
Alison, J. A.
Wootton, R.
Hill, C. J.
Zanaboni, P.
O'Halloran, P.
Bondarenko, J.
Macdonald, Heather
Barker, K.
Crute, Hayley
Mellerick, C.
Wageck, B.
Boursinos, H.
Lahham, A.
Nichols, A.
Corbett, M.
Handley, E.
Mahal, A.
Issue Date: 2024
Publication Title: Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Volume: 22
Issue: 1
Abstract: Rationale: New pulmonary rehabilitation models can improve access to this effective but underused treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease; however, cost-effectiveness has not been determined. Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation, including videoconferencing and synchronous supervision, with standard center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Methods: Prospective economic analyses were undertaken from a societal perspective alongside a randomized controlled equivalence trial in which adults with stable chronic respiratory disease undertook an 8-week outpatient center-based program or telerehabilitation. Clinical assessment for effectiveness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire dyspnea domain score) was undertaken at baseline, after pulmonary rehabilitation, and at 12-month follow-up. Individual-level administrative and self-report healthcare cost data were collected over 12 months after the program (Australian dollars, 2020). Results: There were no between-group differences for effectiveness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire dyspnea domain mean difference, −0.2 [standard error, 1.0]; P = 0.61) or total costs ($565 [5,452]; P = 0.92) over 12 months. On the cost-effectiveness plane, 97.4% of estimates fell between the equivalence margins for effectiveness. Application of a range of values for cost margin demonstrated a 95% probability that telerehabilitation was equivalent to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation when the threshold was $11,000. The results were robust to approach and sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The internal rate of return was 134% over 5 years. Program completion (regardless of model) was associated with a significant reduction in total costs in the following 12 months (β, −$17,960; 95% confidence interval, −29,967 to −5,952). Conclusions: This study supports delivery of telerehabilitation as a cost-effective alternative model of pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. Clinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12616000360415).
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202405-549OC
Internal ID Number: 02970
Health Subject: REMOTE REHABILITATION
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
TELEREHABILITATION
Type: Journal Article
Article
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.