A systematic review of economic analyses of home-based telerehabilitation

Author(s):  
Alisa Grigorovich ◽  
Min Xi ◽  
Natascha Lam ◽  
Maureen Pakosh ◽  
Brian C. F. Chan
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheeba Nadarajah ◽  
Susan Buchholz ◽  
Kristen Dickins

BACKGROUND Globally, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death. Cardiovascular mortality can be decreased by participation in cardiac rehabilitation. Researchers are exploring the use of mHealth technology in cardiac rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness of randomized controlled trials that use a mHealth intervention as a part of an outpatient and/or home-based cardiac rehabilitation program on improving physical activity and physical fitness outcomes. METHODS For this systematic review, mHealth interventions were limited to text messaging, mobile apps, and use of a mobile phone network for data transmission, used to deliver cardiac rehabilitation program. Using six databases, the search strategy included published English language studies through 2016. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers, and then synthesized. RESULTS The initial search yielded 149 articles, of which 15 articles that represented nine studies met inclusion criteria. Articles were published from 2010 to 2016 and came from two continents. The majority (84%) of participants were male. Generally, the participant mean age was late 50s to early 60s. Text messaging was the most frequently used intervention. The results of the physical activity and physical fitness findings were mixed. Effect sizes for intervention as measured by the 6-minute walk test ranged from 0.46 to 0.58 and peak VO2 ranged from 0.03 to 1.35. CONCLUSIONS Globally, use of mHealth in outpatient and/or home-based cardiac rehabilitation is being studied with greater attention. However, these studies are limited by geography, gender, and age. Therefore, further research in the area of cardiac rehabilitation and mHealth is recommended, especially in developing countries, among women, and older adults.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon van der Pol ◽  
Paula Rojas Garcia ◽  
Maarten J. Postma ◽  
Fernando Antoñanzas Villar ◽  
Antoinette D. I. van Asselt

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie A. Leis ◽  
Tamar Mendelson ◽  
S. Darius Tandon ◽  
Deborah F. Perry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolas Schopow ◽  
Georg Osterhoff ◽  
Nikolaus von Dercks ◽  
Felix Girrbach ◽  
Christoph Josten ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic, Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers (CCCC) have been established at several hospitals across Germany with the intention to assist local healthcare professionals in efficiently referring patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to regional hospitals, and therefore to prevent the collapse of local health system structures. In addition, they coordinate interhospital transfers of COVID-19 patients and provide or arrange specialized telemedical consultations. OBJECTIVE This study describes the establishment and management of a CCCC at a German university hospital. METHODS We perform economic analyses (cost, cost-effectiveness, use and utility) according to the CHEERS criteria. Additionally, a systematic review was conducted to identify publications on similar institutions worldwide. RESULTS The two months with the highest local incidence (12/2020 and 01/2021) of COVID-19 cases were considered. During this time, 17.3 requests per day were made to CCCC regarding admission or transfer of COVID-19 patients. The majority of requests was made by emergency medical services (56.3%), patients with an average age of 71.8 years were involved and 69.0% of cases had already positive PCR detection. In 59.8% of the concerning patients, further treatment by the general practitioner or outpatient presentation in a hospital could be initiated after appropriate advice, 27.2% of patients were admitted to normal wards and 12.9% were directly transmitted to an intensive care unit. The operating costs of the CCCC amounted to more than €52,000 per month. 90.4% of all patients presented to the hospital were triaged and announced in advance by the CCCC. No other published economic analysis of COVID-19 coordination or management institutions at hospitals could be found. CONCLUSIONS Despite the high cost of the CCCC, we were able to show that it is a beneficial concept to both the providing hospital and the public health system. However, the most important benefit of the CCCC is that it prevents hospitals from being overrun by patients and that it avoids situations in which doctors have to weigh up one patient’s life against another´s.


Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (17) ◽  
pp. 5006
Author(s):  
Pau Redón ◽  
Atif Shahzad ◽  
Talha Iqbal ◽  
William Wijns

Diagnosing and treating acute coronary syndromes consumes a significant fraction of the healthcare budget worldwide. The pressure on resources is expected to increase with the continuing rise of cardiovascular disease, other chronic diseases and extended life expectancy, while expenditure is constrained. The objective of this review is to assess if home-based solutions for measuring chemical cardiac biomarkers can mitigate or reduce the continued rise in the costs of ACS treatment. A systematic review was performed considering published literature in several relevant public databases (i.e., PUBMED, Cochrane, Embase and Scopus) focusing on current biomarker practices in high-risk patients, their cost-effectiveness and the clinical evidence and feasibility of implementation. Out of 26,000 references screened, 86 met the inclusion criteria after independent full-text review. Current clinical evidence highlights that home-based solutions implemented in primary and secondary prevention reduce health care costs by earlier diagnosis, improved patient outcomes and quality of life, as well as by avoidance of unnecessary use of resources. Economical evidence suggests their potential to reduce health care costs if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or the willingness-to-pay does not surpass £20,000/QALY or €50,000 limit per 20,000 patients, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of these solutions increases when applied to high-risk patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document