Cost effectiveness of a telerehabilitation intervention vs home based care for adults with severe neurologic disability: A randomized clinical trial

ContextSeveral options are available for the care of neurological conditions including care delivered in rehabilitation centres, at home or remotely. While economic studies are available comparing centres and homes, very little economic data relates to mobile teams comparing face-to-face and remote care. ObjectiveTo conduct an economic study comparing face-to-face care at home and care delivered remotely (tele-rehabilitation). MethodA randomised clinical study with two groups; a control group receiving home care and an experimental group receiving tele-rehabilitation. The primary outcome measure was the ICER (Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio). ParticipantsPatients with severe neurological disabilities Results80 patients were enrolled in the study; 77 were analysed to calculate the ICER, which was positive and located in the SW quadrant. A bootstrap with 1000 replications was positioned at 72.8% in the SW quadrant. ConclusionTele-rehabilitation is an acceptable alternative to the management of neurological patients at home. In the mildest cases, remote-rehabilitation may even be dominant. More extensive studies are needed to specify the indications.

Automated summary

This study compared the economic benefits of face-to-face care and remote care for neurological patients. The results showed that remote care is an acceptable alternative for managing neurological patients at home, and may even be advantageous in milder cases. Further extensive studies are needed to specify the indications.