Effects of home-based and telerehabilitation exercise on mental and physical health, and disease cost in people with Alzheimer's disease: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a very disabling long-term disease that requires continuous regular care. A cost-effective and sustainable means of such care may be physical activity or exercise delivered at home or through telerehabilitation. The aim of this study is to determine the effects of home-based or telerehabilitation exercise in people with AD. METHOD: PubMED, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), PEDro, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials until January 2024. The data extracted include the characteristics of the participants, the interventions used for both experimental and the control groups, the baseline, post-intervention and follow-up mean and standard deviation values on the outcomes assessed and the findings of the included studies. Cochrane risks of bias assessment tool and PEDro scale were used to assess the risks of bias and methodological quality of the studies. The results were analyzed using narrative and quantitative syntheses. RESULT: Eleven articles from nine studies (n=550) were included in the study. The results showed that, only global cognitive function (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.19-1.25, p=0.007), neuropsychiatric symptom (MD = -5.28, 95% CI =-6.22 to -4.34, p<0.0001) and ADL (SMD =3.12, 95% CI =0.11-6.13, p=0.04) improved significantly higher in the experimental group post-intervention. At follow-up, the significant difference was maintained only in neuropsychiatric symptoms (MD =-6.20, 95% CI =-7.17 to -5.23, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is a low evidence on the effects of home-based physical activity or exercise on global cognitive function, neuropsychiatric symptoms and ADL.

Significant Cost Savings and Improved Early Clinical Outcomes in Medicare Patients Utilizing a Clinician-Controlled Telerehabilitation System Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The costs and benefits of different rehabilitation protocols following total knee arthroplasty are unclear. The emergence of telerehabilitation has introduced the potential for enhanced patient convenience and cost reduction. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost difference between standard physical therapy (SPT) and a telerehabilitation home-based clinician-controlled therapy system (HCTS). METHODS: A prospectively enrolled, consecutive series of 109 Medicare patients who received SPT were compared to 101 Medicare patients who were treated with a HCTS. The analysis focused on total rehabilitation costs and the assessment of outcome measures: knee range of motion, visual analog scale pain levels, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement. RESULTS: The HCTS group demonstrated not only statistically significantly lower average costs but also faster and sustained knee range of motion improvements. Furthermore, in comparison to SPT, the HCTS group exhibited superior visual analog scale pain scores and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement functional scores at all assessment points postoperatively, which were statistically significant (all P < .001) and surpassed the minimal clinically important difference thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The HCTS used in this study exhibited a remarkable cost-saving advantage of $2,460 per patient compared to standard therapy. As approximately 500,000 primary total knee arthroplasties in the United States are covered by Medicare annually, a switch to HCTS could yield total cost savings of more than $1.23 billion per year for our taxpayer-funded health care system. Furthermore, the HCTS cohort demonstrated superior functional outcomes and improved pain scores across all assessment time points, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Internet-based telerehabilitation could be a valuable option for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, with the advantage of providing rehabilitation from anywhere. However, there is no solid and updated evidence demonstrating its effectiveness on relevant clinical and cost outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of internet-based telerehabilitation during the recovery of musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2023. Trials investigating the effects of internet-based telerehabilitation in any musculoskeletal disorder were selected. Nonoriginal articles and grey literature were excluded. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection and data extraction. Random effect meta-analyses (standardized mean difference) and further sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: We selected 37 clinical trials (33 randomized and 4 non-randomized) and 5 health economics studies, which included a total of 4,288 participants. Telerehabilitation was more favourable than control treatments in improving all studied clinical outcomes, although the effectiveness varied depending on the type of musculoskeletal disorder. The standard mean differences (SMD) ranged from 0.24 to 0.91. For physical function, the primary outcome, superior effectiveness was found only in people with hip fractures (SMD, 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.34 to 1.41). The effects for joint replacement, osteoarthritis, and spine pain were similar to those of control treatments. However, the favourable outcomes for telerehabilitation became insignificant when compared specifically to face-to-face rehabilitation. Some results displayed publication bias and a lack of robustness, necessitating cautious interpretation. In terms of health economics studies, telerehabilitation was 89.55$ (95 % CI 4.6 to 174.5) cheaper per individual than conventional treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Telerehabilitation should be considered in the recovery process of musculoskeletal disorders when optimal face-to-face rehabilitation is not feasible. Moreover, telerehabilitation reduces costs and time. PROSPERO NUMBER: CRD42022322425.

Telerehabilitation for Stroke is Here to Stay. But at What Cost?

The use of telerehabilitation after stroke has necessarily increased in the last 2 years because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and many rehabilitation teams rapidly adapted to offering their services remotely. Evidence supporting the efficacy of telerehabilitation is still scarce with few randomized controlled trials, although current systematic reviews suggest that telerehabilitation does not lead to inferior outcomes when compared to face-to-face treatment. Increasing experience of telerehabilitation however has highlighted some of the pitfalls that need to be solved before we see widespread pragmatic adoption of new practices. We must ensure that offering services using digital technologies does not exclude those who need our services. We must acknowledge that our interactions online differ, both in the way we relate to each other and in the content of clinical consultations. Furthermore, we need to consider how to support staff who may be feeling disconnected and fatigued after spending hours providing remote therapies. Telerehabilitation is likely here to stay and has potential to help deliver rehabilitation to the many people who could benefit, but there are obstacles, challenges and trade-offs to be considered and overcome.

Cost-effectiveness of Cardiac Telerehabilitation With Relapse Prevention for the Treatment of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease in the Netherlands.

Importance: Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has been found to be a safe and beneficial alternative to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and might be associated with higher participation rates by reducing barriers to CR use. However, implementation of CTR interventions remains low, which may be owing to a lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of data from large-scale randomized clinical trials. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of CTR with relapse prevention compared with center-based CR among patients with coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation performed a cost-utility analysis of data from the SmartCare-CAD (Effects of Cardiac Telerehabilitation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Using a Personalized Patient-Centred ICT Platform) randomized clinical trial. The cost-effectiveness and utility of 3 months of cardiac telerehabilitation followed by 9 months of relapse prevention were compared with the cost-effectiveness of traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation. The analysis included 300 patients with stable coronary artery disease who received care at a CR center serving 2 general hospitals in the Netherlands between May 23, 2016, and July 26, 2018. All patients were entering phase 2 of outpatient CR and were followed up for 1 year (until August 14, 2019). Data were analyzed from September 21, 2020, to September 24, 2021. Intervention: After baseline measurements were obtained, participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to receive CTR (intervention group) or center-based CR (control group) using computerized block randomization. After 6 supervised center-based training sessions, patients in the intervention group continued training at home using a heart rate monitor and accelerometer. Patients uploaded heart rate and physical activity data and discussed their progress during a weekly video consultation with their physical therapist. After 3 months, weekly coaching was concluded, and on-demand coaching was initiated for relapse prevention; patients were instructed to continue using their wearable sensors and were contacted in cases of nonadherence to the intervention or reduced exercise or physical activity volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey (EQ-5D-5L) and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and cardiac-associated health care costs and non-health care costs were measured by health care consumption, productivity, and informal care questionnaires (the Medical Consumption Questionnaire, the Productivity Cost Questionnaire, and the Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire) designed by the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment. Costs were converted to 2020 price levels (in euros) using the Dutch consumer price index (to convert to US dollars, euro values were multiplied by 1.142, which was the mean exchange rate in 2020). Results: Among 300 patients (266 men [88.7%]), the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (9.5) years. The quality of life among patients receiving CTR vs center-based CR was comparable during the study according to the results of both utility measures (mean difference on EQ-5D-5L: -0.004; P = .82; mean difference on EQ-VAS: -0.001; P = .92). Intervention costs were significantly higher for CTR (mean [SE], €224 [€4] [$256 ($4)]) compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], €156 [€5] [$178 ($6)]; P < .001); however, no difference in overall cardiac health care costs was observed between CTR (mean [SE], €4787 [€503] [$5467 ($574)] and center-based CR (mean [SE], €5507 [€659] [$6289 ($753)]; P = .36). From a societal perspective, CTR was associated with lower costs compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], €20 495 [€ 2751] [$23 405 ($3142)] vs €24 381 [€3613] [$27 843 ($4126)], respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (-€3887 [-$4439]; P = .34). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, a CTR intervention with relapse prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared with center-based CR, suggesting that CTR maybe used as an alternative intervention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. These results add to the evidence base in favor of CTR and may increase the implementation of CTR interventions in clinical practice.

Estimating the cost and value of functional changes in communication ability following telepractice treatment for aphasia.

CONTEXT: Aphasia is a post-stroke condition that can dramatically impact a person with aphasia's (PWA) communication abilities. To date, few if any studies have considered the cost and cost-effectiveness of functional change in aphasia nor considered measures of patient's value for aphasia treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost, cost-effectiveness, and perceived value associated with improved functional communication in individuals receiving telerehabilitation treatment for aphasia. DESIGN: Twenty PWA completed between 5 and 12 telehealth rehabilitation sessions of 45-60 minutes within a 6-week time frame using a Language-Oriented Treatment (LOT) designed to address a range of language issues among individuals with aphasia. National Outcomes Measures (NOMS) comprehension and verbal expression and the ASHA Quality of Communication Life (QCL) were completed prior to and at the completion of rehabilitation to obtain baseline and treatment measures. RESULTS: Age, education, and race are significantly correlated with improvement in the NOMS verbal expression. African Americans (OR = 2.0917) are twice as likely as Whites to experience improvement after treatment. The likelihood of improvement also increases with each additional year of education (OR = 1.002) but decrease with age (OR = 0.9463). A total of 15 PWA showed improvement in NOMS comprehension and nine patients showed improvement in NOMS verbal expression. Improving patients attended between five and 12 treatment sessions. The average cost of improvement in NOMS comprehension was $1,152 per patient and NOMS verbal expression was $1,128 per patient with individual treatment costs varying between $540 and $1,296. However, on average, the monetary equivalent in patient's improved QCL was between $1,790.39 to $3,912,54-far exceeding the financial cost of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When measuring the functional improvement of patients with aphasia, patient's quality of communication life received from treatment exceeded financial cost of services provided.

Cardiopulmonary Telerehabilitation.

Cardiopulmonary telerehabilitation is a safe and effective alternative to traditional center-based rehabilitation. It offers a sustainable solution to more conveniently meet the needs of patients with acute or chronic, preexisting or newly acquired, cardiopulmonary diseases. To maximize success, programs should prioritize basic, safe, and timely care options over comprehensive or complex approaches. The future should incorporate new strategies learned during a global pandemic and harness the power of information and communication technology to provide evidence-based patient-centered care. This review highlights clinical considerations, current evidence, recommendations, and future directions of cardiopulmonary telerehabilitation.

Telerehabilitation benefits patients with multiple sclerosis in an urban setting.

INTRODUCTION: People living with multiple sclerosis (MS) often require rehabilitation to manage their symptoms. Telerehabilitation offers improved access to treatment options by reducing travel time and cost. Our telerehabilitation program pairs training exercises simultaneously with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique. In the current study, we characterized the benefits of our remotely supervised tDCS (RS-tDCS) at-home telerehabilitation protocol in an urban sample of MS participants. METHODS: Participants with MS were recruited to complete a telerehabilitation trial using tDCS paired with cognitive rehabilitation at-home using remote supervision (RS-tDCS). Participant time and travel costs for study visits to our clinic in midtown New York City were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with MS (aged 18 to 71) with mild to severe neurologic disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale score median = 3.5, range: 0.0 to 8.0) completed the survey. Round-trip clinic attendance required 2.3 ± 2.3 h and US $27.04 ± 38.13 for out-of-pocket expenses. Participants rated difficulty of clinic attendance as moderately to significantly difficult (2.5 ± 1.3). Severity of neurologic disability accounted for the greatest variance in difficulty attending clinic (30%, p < 0.001). RS-tDCS had 95% treatment compliance and 93% of participants reported satisfaction with the at-home treatment. DISCUSSION: Attending clinic is associated with significant costs for patients with neurologic disorders, even in urban settings. Rehabilitation can be delivered at home and supervised in real-time via videoconference.

Efficiency of telemedicine for acute stroke: a cost-effectiveness analysis from a French pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Telestroke is an effective way to improve care and health outcomes for stroke patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a French telestroke network. METHODS: A decision analysis model was built using population-based data. We compared short-term clinical outcomes and costs for the management of acute ischemic stroke patients before and after the implementation of a telestroke network from the point of view of the national health insurance system. Three effectiveness endpoints were used: hospital death, death at 3 months, and severe disability 3 months after stroke (assessed with the modified Rankin scale). Most clinical and economic parameters were estimated from the medical files of 742 retrospectively included patients. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The analyses revealed that the telestroke strategy was more effective and slightly more costly than the reference strategy (25 disability cases avoided per 1,000 at 3 months, 6.7 avoided hospital deaths, and 13 avoided deaths at 3 months for an extra cost of EUR 97, EUR 138, and EUR 154, respectively). The results remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In France, telestroke is an effective strategy for improving patient outcomes and, despite the extra cost, it has a legitimate place in the national health care system.

Cost-effectiveness of the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial tele-rehabilitation interventions for patients with advanced cancers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model (CCM)-based, centralized telecare approach to delivering rehabilitation services to late-stage cancer patients experiencing functional limitations. METHODS: Data for this analysis came from the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial, a randomized control trial of 516 patients assigned to: (a) a control group (arm A), (b) tele-rehabilitation (arm B), and (c) tele-rehabilitation plus pharmacological pain management (arm C). Patient quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-3L at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up. Direct intervention costs were measured from the experience of the trial. Participants' hospitalization data were obtained from their medical records, and costs associated with these encounters were estimated from unit cost data and hospital-associated utilization information found in the literature. A secondary analysis of total utilization costs was conducted for the subset of COPE trial patients for whom comprehensive cost capture was possible. RESULTS: In the intervention-only model, tele-rehabilitation (arm B) was found to be the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15 494/QALY. At the $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold, this tele-rehabilitation was the cost-effective strategy in 95.4% of simulations. It was found to be cost saving compared to enhanced usual care once the downstream hospitalization costs were taken into account. In the total cost analysis, total inpatient hospitalization costs were significantly lower in both tele-rehabilitation (arm B) and tele-rehabilitation plus pain management (arm C) compared to control (arm A), (P = .048). CONCLUSION: The delivery of a CCM-based, centralized tele-rehabilitation intervention to patients with advanced stage cancer is highly cost-effective. Clinicians and care teams working with this vulnerable population should consider incorporating such interventions into their patient care plans.

Does telephone-delivered exercise advice and support by physiotherapists improve pain and/or function in people with knee osteoarthritis? Telecare randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate a physiotherapist-led telephone-delivered exercise advice and support intervention for people with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Participant-blinded, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial. 175 people were randomly allocated to (1) existing telephone service (≥1 nurse consultation for self-management advice) or (2) exercise advice and support (5-10 consultations with a physiotherapist trained in behaviour change for a personalised strengthening and physical activity programme) plus the existing service. Primary outcomes were overall knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale, range 0-10) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, range 0-68) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes, cost-effectiveness and 12-month follow-up were included. RESULTS: 165 (94%) and 158 (90%) participants were retained at 6 and 12 months, respectively. At 6 months, exercise advice and support resulted in greater improvement in function (mean difference 4.7 (95% CI 1.0 to 8.4)), but not overall pain (0.7, 0.0 to 1.4). Eight of 14 secondary outcomes favoured exercise advice and support at 6 months, including pain on daily activities, walking pain, pain self-efficacy, global improvements across multiple domains (overall improvement, improved pain, improved function and improved physical activity) and satisfaction. By 12 months, most outcomes were similar between groups. Exercise advice and support cost $A514/participant and did not save other health service resources. CONCLUSION: Telephone-delivered physiotherapist-led exercise advice and support modestly improved physical function but not the co-primary outcome of knee pain at 6 months. Functional benefits were not sustained at 12 months. The clinical significance of this effect is uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (#12616000054415).

Development and evaluation of a tailored e-self-management intervention (dr. Bart app) for knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes (the development of) an eHealth tool (dr. Bart app) to enhance self-management and to optimize non-surgical health care utilization in patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and presents a study aiming 1) to study the effectiveness of the dr. Bart app on health care use 2) to explore differences in use, usability and the clinical outcomes of the dr. Bart app between the Netherlands and Germany. METHODS: The dr. Bart app is a fully automated eHealth application and is based on the Fogg model for behavioural change, augmented with reminders, rewards and self-monitoring to reinforce app engagement and health behaviour. The dr. Bart app propose goals to a healthier lifestyle based on machine learning techniques fed by data collected in a personal profile and choosing behaviour of the app user. Patients ≥50 years with self-reported knee and/or hip OA will be eligible to participate. Participants will be recruited in the community through advertisements in local newspapers and campaigns on social media. This protocol presents a study with three arms, aiming to include 161 patients in each arm. In the Netherlands, patients are randomly allocated to usual care or dr. Bart app and in Germany all patients receive the dr. Bart app. The primary outcome of the first research question is the number of self-reported consultations in secondary health care. The primary outcome of the second research question (comparison between the Netherlands and Germany) is self-management behaviour assessed by the patient activation measure (PAM-13) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are costs, health-related quality of life, physical functioning and activity, pain, use and usability of the dr. Bart app. Data will be collected through three online questionnaires (at baseline and after 3 and 6 months after inclusion). DISCUSSION: This study will gain insight into the effectiveness of the dr. Bart app in the (conservative) treatment of patients with knee and/or hip OA and differences in the use and usability of the dr. Bart app between the Netherlands and Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (Trial Number NTR6693 / NL6505 ). Registration date: 4 September 2017.

Effectiveness of a tele-rehabilitation intervention to improve performance and reduce morbidity for people post hip fracture - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most surviving hip-fracture patients experience reduced mobility and lose some of their functional ability, which increases the risk of complications and rehospitalization. Post-discharge transitional programs to reduce readmissions and disabilities have shown some success. Telerehabilitation refers to the use of technologies to provide rehabilitation services to people in their homes. Considering the need for long-term follow-up care for people with hip fracture, in-home telerehabilitation could increase independence, decrease hospital stays and reduce the burden for caregivers. The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention program based on telerehabilitation on activities of daily living (ADL), quality of life (QOL), depression and burden on caregivers compared to face-to-face home visits and usual care of community-dwelling older adults after hip fracture. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a three-armed randomized control trial (RCT) including pre/post intervention and follow-up. The trial will include 90 older people with hip fractures who will be randomly assigned to a telerehabilitation group (N = 30), face-to-face visits (N = 30) and a control group. The aim of the intervention is to improve the transition from rehabilitation units to community dwelling. It will include 10 videoconferencing/ face-to-face sessions from an occupational therapist in the presence of the primary caregiver. Each session will be utilized to guide the participants to achieve their self-identified goals, focusing on problem-solving for daily life situations and on the ability to implement the discussed strategies for a variety of activities. Outcome measures include Functional Independence Measure (FIM) for evaluation of ADL, SF-12 for evaluation of Health-related QOL, The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and The Zarit Caregiver Burden Scale. Data will be analyzed using Repeated measures MANOVA. DISCUSSION: The current study will enable the cost-effectiveness examination of a suggested rehabilitation service based on available technology. The proposed intervention will increase accessibility of in-home rehabilitation services, improve function and health, and reduce economic burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03376750 (12/15/2017).

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a virtual multidisciplinary stroke care clinic for community-dwelling stroke survivors and caregivers: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The virtual multidisciplinary stroke care clinic (VMSCC) is the first nurse-led clinic developed to offer support to community-dwelling stroke survivors and caregivers, and to promote poststroke recovery. This two-arm randomised controlled trial will evaluate its effectiveness on survivors' self-efficacy (SE), survivors' and caregivers' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness on emergency admissions and length of readmission hospital stay. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A consecutive sample of 384 stroke survivor-caregiver dyads will be recruited from four hospitals. An online platform that embraces readily accessible and reliable information will be developed. Participants randomly assigned to the intervention group will receive usual care plus the VMSCC service. The service includes access to a tablet containing 30 videos demonstrating appropriate self-care strategies, communication with a registered nurse monthly through video and telephone calls and regular blood pressure monitoring. Primary outcomes include survivors' SE in self-management and survivors' and caregivers' HRQoL. Secondary outcomes include survivors' performance of self-management behaviours, depression and social participation; and caregivers' coping strategies, satisfaction with caring and depression. Data will be collected at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months after commencing the intervention. Survivors' and caregivers' satisfaction with the service will be assessed at 6-month follow-up. Multivariable regressions and generalised estimating equations model will be conducted. Survivors' emergency admissions and length of hospital stay will be evaluated during the 6-month follow-up period. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed on the average total cost incurred. DISCUSSION: The results will inform stakeholders about incorporating the VMSCC service into current stroke rehabilitation service. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC Ref. No.: 2017.660). All participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be disseminated through scientific publications, and presentations at local and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR1800016101; Pre-results.

Telemedicine in Rehabilitation.

Telerehabilitation refers to the virtual delivery of rehabilitation services into the patient's home. This methodology has shown to be advantageous when used to enhance or replace conventional therapy to overcome geographic, physical, and cognitive barriers. The exponential growth of technology has led to the development of new applications that enable health care providers to monitor, educate, treat, and support patients in their own environment. Best practices and well-designed Telerehabilitation studies are needed to build and sustain a strong Telerehabilitation system that is integrated in the current health care structure and is cost-effective.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Home-Based Telerehabilitation Compared With Centre-Based Rehabilitation in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Whilst home-based telerehabilitation has been shown non-inferior to traditional centre-based rehabilitation in patients with chronic heart failure, its economic sustainability remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the cost-utility of a home-based telerehabilitation program. METHODS: A comparative, trial-based, incremental cost-utility analysis was conducted from a health care provider's perspective. We collected data as part of a multi-centre, two-arm, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial with 6 months follow-up. There were 53 participants randomised to either a telerehabilitation program (consisting of 12 weeks of group-based exercise and education delivered into the home via online videoconferencing) or a traditional centre-based program. Health care costs (including personnel, equipment and hospital readmissions due to heart failure) were extracted from health system records, and calculated in Australian dollars using 2013 as the base year. Health utilities were measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Estimates were presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on bootstrapping. Costs and utility differences were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: Total health care costs per participant were significantly lower in the telerehabilitation group (-$1,590, 95% CI: -2,822, -359) during the 6 months. No significant differences in quality-adjusted life years (0, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.05) were seen between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure telerehabilitation appears to be less costly and as effective for the health care provider as traditional centre-based rehabilitation.

Travel Cost Savings and Practicality for Low-Vision Telerehabilitation.

Introduction: Veterans with low vision who live in rural communities have limited access to low-vision rehabilitation services, unless they are able to travel several miles to a specialty low-vision clinic. A low-vision optometry telerehabilitation evaluation is a thorough assessment of patient's functional vision. Following each low-vision optometry telerehabilitation evaluation is a low-vision telerehabilitation initial assessment with a blind rehabilitation therapist. Our objective was to estimate the acceptance and practicality of low-vision telerehabilitation and investigate the travel cost and time savings. Methods: Utilizing Google Maps™, round-trip travel mileage and travel time can be estimated between the veteran's home and the Buffalo Veterans Affairs (VA) and compared with the round-trip mileage and travel time between the veteran's home and local community-based outpatient center (CBOC) or local VA for low-vision telerehabilitation services. The difference is the savings in travel miles and time. Cost saving can be calculated by multiplying difference in travel miles by cost per mile. Results: Veterans who chose not to schedule face-to-face low-vision rehabilitation at the Buffalo VA due to an average round-trip travel distance of 151 miles scheduled a low-vision telerehabilitation at a local CBOC or local VA with an average round-trip travel distance of 29 miles. Adding low-vision telerehabilitation services from fiscal year (FY) 13 to FY 17 resulted in a 24% increase in low-vision patient care. The median saving of travel miles for rural veterans was 122 miles per veteran, and the median saving of travel time was 2.09 h per veteran. Overall, the median saving of the travel cost was $65.29 per veteran. Conclusions: This study shows and supports low-vision telerehabilitation as an accepted, practical, time-saving, and cost-saving alternative option to traditional face-to-face consultations with a low-vision optometrist and blind rehabilitation therapist.

Telerehabilitation in individuals with severe acquired brain injury: Rationale, study design, and methodology.

BACKGROUND: Severe acquired brain injury (SABI) rehabilitation should be as intensive and long as to allow the patients get the best independence and quality of life (QoL), but facing with the rehabilitation socioeconomic burden. Telerehabilitation (TR) could supply frail subjects requiring long-term rehabilitation. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, parallel design, single-blind trial will be conducted at the IRCCS Neurolesi Bonino Pulejo (Messina, Italy) and IRCCS Hospital San Camillo (Venice, Italy) involving patients suffering from SABI and requiring home motor and cognitive rehabilitation. We will investigate the use of TR, based on advanced Information and Communication Technology (ICT) solutions, taking into account that the supervision of rehabilitation at home will be enriched with the counseling and vital parameters monitoring. The enrolled patients will be balanced for pathology, and randomized in 2 groups, performing TR (G1) or standard rehabilitation training (G2), respectively, according to a pc-generated random assignment. TR will be delivered by means of an advanced video-conferencing system, whereas the patient will be provided with low-cost monitoring devices, able to collect data about his/her health status and QoL. In both the groups each treatment (either cognitive or motor, or both as per patient functional status) will last about 1 hour a day, 5 days/week, for 12 weeks. Two structured telephone interviews will be administered to the patients (when possible) and/or their caregivers, and to all the healthcare professionals involved in the patient management, 1 week after the beginning and at the end of the TR. All the patients will undergo a complete neurological and cognitive examination performed by skilled physicians and psychologists, blindly. Clinical evaluations will be administered blindly, before and after the treatments. RESULTS: the data of this study should demonstrate that TR is at least non-inferior in comparison with the same amount of usual territorial rehabilitative physical treatments, taking into account patients' functional recovery, psychological well-being, caregiver burden, and healthcare costs. CONCLUSION: data coming from this study could demonstrate the usefulness of TR in facing the rehabilitation socioeconomic burden of managing patients with SABI, so to allow the patients get the best independence and quality of life (QoL).