Economic Evaluation of Telerehabilitation: Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Utility Studies.

Abstract

Background: Telerehabilitation could benefit a large population by increasing adherence to rehabilitation protocols.

Objective: Our objective was to review and discuss the use of cost-utility approaches in economic evaluations of telerehabilitation interventions.

Methods: A review of the literature on PubMed, Scopus, Centres for Review and Dissemination databases (including the HTA database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last search on February 8, 2021) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were defined in accordance with the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design) system: the included studies had to evaluate patients in rehabilitation therapy for all diseases and disorders (population) through exercise-based telerehabilitation (intervention) and had to have a control group that received face-to-face rehabilitation (comparison), and these studies had to evaluate effectiveness through gain in quality of life (outcome) and used the design of randomized and controlled clinical studies (study).

Results: We included 11 economic evaluations, of which 6 concerned cardiovascular diseases. Several types of interventions were assessed as telerehabilitation, consisting in monitoring of rehabilitation at home (monitored by physicians) or a rehabilitation program with exercise and an educational intervention at home alone. All studies were based on randomized clinical trials and used a validated health-related quality of life instrument to describe patients' health states. Four evaluations used the EQ-5D, 1 used the EQ-5D-5L, 2 used the EQ-5D-3L, 3 used the Short-Form Six-Dimension questionnaire, and 1 used the 36-item Short Form survey. The mean quality-adjusted life years gained using telerehabilitation services varied from -0.09 to 0.89. These results were reported in terms of the probability that the intervention was cost-effective at different thresholds for willingness-to-pay values. Most studies showed results about telerehabilitation as dominant (ie, more effective and less costly) together with superiority or noninferiority in outcomes.

Conclusions: There is evidence to support telerehabilitation as a cost-effective intervention for a large population among different disease areas. There is a need for conducting cost-effectiveness studies in countries because the available evidence has limited generalizability in such countries.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42021248785; https://tinyurl.com/4xurdvwf.