International Clinician Perspectives on Telerehabilitation (Pre-Coronavirus): a Qualitative Meta-Synthesis

Douglass, Hannah; Lowman, Joneen; Causey-Upton, Renee

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2022.01.007

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ [19][20][21][22][23][24] They have examined different types of Telerehabilitation interventions including mhealth applications, and some have included evidence from qualitative studies. [25][26][27] The majority of the studies included in the present systematic review were RCTs. The primary outcome of these included studies reported health outcomes as well as aspects of healthcare resource use (e.g.…”

Section: Overall Completeness and Applicability Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the cost of Telerehabilitation versus Traditional In-person rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Preprint)

K S,

Gnanasekaran,

Mehto

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Telerehabilitation services provide numerous advantages such as better patient outcomes, lower healthcare costs, enhanced access to care, and improved patient satisfaction. Telerehabilitation minimizes the need for expensive equipment, yet evidence quantifying its benefits remains insufficient. OBJECTIVE The present study intends to systematically summarize previous research on the total and average costs of telerehabilitation and the barriers to implementing telerehabilitation programs. METHODS We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and the OVID Library databases retrieving 3858 records. Economic Evaluation Metrics like currency reported in the study were converted to USD (2023) for standardization and types of costs measured (direct and indirect) were extracted from 21 studies. The meta-analysis was conducted for 14 studies using the meta package in R. RESULTS We included 21 studies (19,690 patients) in our systematic review, while only 14 were included in the pooled analysis. Many studies reported no significant differences between the telerehabilitation and control groups, but the combined effect estimate showed significant differences in terms of the total and average costs with the mean difference of 71.92 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS The study showed lower cost for telerehabilitation than in controls. Telerehabilitation can be an effective alternative to traditional rehabilitation therapy, particularly in remote or underserved locations. Larger studies are needed to assess the ongoing developments in telerehabilitation.

show abstract