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.