Shambushankar Aviraj K, Jose Jobinse, Gnanasekaran Sridevi, Kaur Gurveen
Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, Bhopal, IND.
Community Medicine, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, IND.
Cureus. 2025 Feb 14;17(2):e79028. doi: 10.7759/cureus.79028. eCollection 2025 Feb.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person rehabilitation. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid databases identified 14 eligible studies. The analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, assessing economic outcomes using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Findings indicate that telerehabilitation was cost-effective in three out of 14 studies included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The mean ICER for telerehabilitation compared to traditional rehabilitation varied, with a probability of cost-effectiveness reaching 90% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,000 per QALY. However, at a WTP threshold of $0, the probability of cost-effectiveness remained low, suggesting that telerehabilitation does not always dominate in cost-effectiveness analyses. The study highlights the potential of telerehabilitation to provide similar or improved health outcomes compared to traditional rehabilitation while reducing travel costs and enhancing patient access. Increased patient satisfaction, reduced hospital readmissions, and improved adherence to rehabilitation protocols contributed to the economic benefits observed. However, methodological heterogeneity across studies remains a limitation. Given the growing adoption of digital health technologies, telerehabilitation presents a viable and economically efficient alternative to in-person rehabilitation. Policymakers should consider integrating telerehabilitation into routine healthcare services, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to optimize cost-effectiveness and enhance accessibility. Further research should focus on standardizing cost-effectiveness evaluation methods to strengthen evidence for large-scale implementation.
本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了远程康复与传统面对面康复相比的成本效益。通过全面检索PubMed、Scopus、护理及相关健康文献累积索引（CINAHL）和Ovid数据库，确定了14项符合条件的研究。该分析遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）2020指南，使用增量成本效益比（ICER）和质量调整生命年（QALY）评估经济结果。研究结果表明，在成本效益分析纳入的14项研究中，有3项显示远程康复具有成本效益。与传统康复相比，远程康复的平均ICER有所不同，在每QALY支付意愿（WTP）阈值为30000美元时，成本效益概率达到90%。然而，在WTP阈值为0时，成本效益概率仍然较低，这表明远程康复在成本效益分析中并不总是占主导地位。该研究强调了远程康复与传统康复相比，在提供相似或更好的健康结果的同时，降低旅行成本并增加患者可及性的潜力。患者满意度提高、医院再入院率降低以及康复方案依从性改善促成了所观察到的经济效益。然而，各研究之间的方法学异质性仍然是一个限制因素。鉴于数字健康技术的日益普及，远程康复是面对面康复的一种可行且经济高效的替代方案。政策制定者应考虑将远程康复纳入常规医疗服务，特别是在资源有限的环境中，以优化成本效益并提高可及性。进一步的研究应侧重于标准化成本效益评估方法，以加强大规模实施的证据。
