4.3 Article

Telemedicine for multiple sclerosis patients: assessment using Health Value Compass

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 472-480

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458511421918

Keywords

benefits and costs; multiple sclerosis; outcome assessment; quality of life; technology assessment; telemedicine

Funding

  1. 'Galil Center for Medical Informatics, Telemedicine and Personalized Medicine' at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
  2. Israeli Ministry of Health, Jerusalem

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Telemedicine carries the potential of improving accessibility to health services, especially for disabled people. Objective: To assess the health-related outcomes of short-term implementation of telemedicine (telemed) for MS patients. Methods: A prospective study of 40 MS patients divided into a control group and a telemed group was conducted, in two stages: A. Six months' follow-up for measurement of baseline health-related variables; B. Implementation stage, adding home telecare to the telemed group. A Health Value Compass was applied to assess the outcomes of home telecare implementation. Clinical status, cost data, patients' self-assessment of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and satisfaction with telecare were studied. Results: Patients in the telemed group demonstrated improved clinical outcome measured by symptoms severity. There was a decrease of at least 35% in the medical costs for 67% of the telemed group patients. Satisfaction with telecare was high and most patients would recommend this service to others. Conclusions: The present pilot study, applying Health Value Compass-based analysis, suggests that telecare is a powerful tool for monitoring MS patients at home, carries the potential to improve health care while reducing costs, and should be considered for implementation as part of the management of chronic neurological diseases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available