Telerehabilitation Compared with Center-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation for People with Chronic Respiratory Disease: Economic Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

<b>Rationale:</b> 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. <b>Objectives:</b> To compare the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation, including videoconferencing and synchronous supervision, with standard center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. <b>Methods:</b> 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). <b>Results:</b> There were no between-group differences for effectiveness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire dyspnea domain mean difference, -0.2 [standard error, 1.0]; <i>P</i> = 0.61) or total costs ($565 [5,452]; <i>P</i> = 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). <b>Conclusions:</b> 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).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Published
2024-09-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1513/annalsats.202405-549oc
Citations
11
Primary Topic
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.97

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Telerehabilitation Compared with Center-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation for People with Chronic Respiratory Disease: Economic Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Bruna Wageck, Emma Handley, Kathryn Barker, Anne Elizabeth Holland et al.
11 citations
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
5.97
article

Telerehabilitation Compared with Center-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation for People with Chronic Respiratory Disease: Economic Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Bruna Wageck, Emma Handley, Kathryn Barker, Anne Elizabeth Holland, Ajay Mahal, Narelle S. Cox, Aroub Lahham, Janet Bondarenko, Amanda Nichols, Paolo Zanaboni, Hayley Crute, Helen Boursinos, Angela T. Burge, Catherine J. Hill, Jennifer Alison, Heather Macdonald, Richard Wootton, Christine F. McDonald, Christie Mellerick, Paul O’Halloran, Monique Corbett
article en
11 citations

Abstract

<b>Rationale:</b> 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. <b>Objectives:</b> To compare the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation, including videoconferencing and synchronous supervision, with standard center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. <b>Methods:</b> 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). <b>Results:</b> There were no between-group differences for effectiveness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire dyspnea domain mean difference, -0.2 [standard error, 1.0]; <i>P</i> = 0.61) or total costs ($565 [5,452]; <i>P</i> = 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). <b>Conclusions:</b> 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).

Annals of the American Thoracic SocietyVol. 22(1)
The University of Sydney (AU), University Hospital of North Norway (NO), The University of Melbourne (AU), La Trobe University (AU), Austin Hospital (AU), The Alfred Hospital (AU), Faculty (United Kingdom) (GB), NHS Grampian (GB), Institute for Breathing and Sleep (AU), Ballarat Health Services (AU), Footscray Hospital (AU), Western Health (AU), Sydney Local Health District (AU), Melbourne Health (AU), Alfred Health (AU), Austin Health (AU), Grampians Health, Monash University (AU), UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
Medical Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
5.97
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.