数字运动康复技术的经济分析:系统综述。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Koffi Adzinyo Agbemanyole, Kokouvi Geovani Agbohessou, Christelle Pons, Philippe Lenca, Olivier Rémy-Néris, Myriam Le Goff-Pronost
{"title":"数字运动康复技术的经济分析:系统综述。","authors":"Koffi Adzinyo Agbemanyole, Kokouvi Geovani Agbohessou, Christelle Pons, Philippe Lenca, Olivier Rémy-Néris, Myriam Le Goff-Pronost","doi":"10.1186/s13561-024-00523-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rehabilitation technologies offer promising opportunities for interventions for patients with motor disabilities. However, their use in routine care remains limited due to their high cost and persistent doubts about their cost-effectiveness. Providing solid evidence of the economic efficiency of rehabilitation technologies would help dispel these doubts in order to better take advantage of these technologies. In this context, this systematic review aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions based on the use of digital technologies. In total, 660 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were identified, of which eleven studies met all the inclusion criteria. Of these eleven studies, seven proved to be cost-effective, while four were not. Four studies used cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and seven used cost-minimization analyses (CMAs). The majority (ten studies) focused on the rehabilitation of the upper and/or lower limbs after a stroke, while only one study examined the rehabilitation of the lower limbs after knee arthroplasty. Regarding the evaluated devices, seven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of robotic rehabilitation and four analyzed rehabilitation with virtual reality.The assessment of the quality of the included studies using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) suggested that the quality was related to the economic analysis method: all studies that adopted a cost-utility analysis obtained a high quality score (above 80%), while the quality scores of the cost-minimization analyses were average, with the highest score obtained by a CMA being 72%. The average quality score of all the articles was 75%, ranging between 52 and 100. Of the four studies with a considering score, two concluded that there was equivalence between the intervention and conventional care in terms of cost-effectiveness, one concluded that the intervention dominated, while the last one concluded that usual care dominated. This suggests that even considering the quality of the included studies, rehabilitation interventions based on digital technologies remain cost-effective, they improved health outcomes and quality of life for patients with motor disorders while also allowing cost savings.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253330/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Koffi Adzinyo Agbemanyole, Kokouvi Geovani Agbohessou, Christelle Pons, Philippe Lenca, Olivier Rémy-Néris, Myriam Le Goff-Pronost\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13561-024-00523-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Rehabilitation technologies offer promising opportunities for interventions for patients with motor disabilities. However, their use in routine care remains limited due to their high cost and persistent doubts about their cost-effectiveness. Providing solid evidence of the economic efficiency of rehabilitation technologies would help dispel these doubts in order to better take advantage of these technologies. In this context, this systematic review aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions based on the use of digital technologies. In total, 660 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were identified, of which eleven studies met all the inclusion criteria. Of these eleven studies, seven proved to be cost-effective, while four were not. Four studies used cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and seven used cost-minimization analyses (CMAs). The majority (ten studies) focused on the rehabilitation of the upper and/or lower limbs after a stroke, while only one study examined the rehabilitation of the lower limbs after knee arthroplasty. Regarding the evaluated devices, seven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of robotic rehabilitation and four analyzed rehabilitation with virtual reality.The assessment of the quality of the included studies using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) suggested that the quality was related to the economic analysis method: all studies that adopted a cost-utility analysis obtained a high quality score (above 80%), while the quality scores of the cost-minimization analyses were average, with the highest score obtained by a CMA being 72%. The average quality score of all the articles was 75%, ranging between 52 and 100. Of the four studies with a considering score, two concluded that there was equivalence between the intervention and conventional care in terms of cost-effectiveness, one concluded that the intervention dominated, while the last one concluded that usual care dominated. This suggests that even considering the quality of the included studies, rehabilitation interventions based on digital technologies remain cost-effective, they improved health outcomes and quality of life for patients with motor disorders while also allowing cost savings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253330/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00523-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00523-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

康复技术为运动障碍患者的干预提供了大有可为的机会。然而,由于康复技术成本高昂,其成本效益一直受到质疑,因此在日常护理中的应用仍然有限。提供康复技术经济效益的可靠证据将有助于消除这些疑虑,从而更好地利用这些技术。在此背景下,本系统综述旨在研究基于数字技术使用的康复干预措施的成本效益。本次系统性综述共筛选出 2011 年至 2021 年间发表的 660 篇文章,其中有 11 项研究符合所有纳入标准。在这 11 项研究中,7 项被证明具有成本效益,4 项不具成本效益。四项研究使用了成本效用分析(CUAs),七项使用了成本最小化分析(CMA)。大多数研究(10 项)侧重于中风后上肢和/或下肢的康复,只有一项研究对膝关节置换术后下肢的康复进行了研究。使用CHEERS(卫生经济评估综合报告标准)对纳入研究的质量进行评估后发现,研究质量与经济分析方法有关:所有采用成本效用分析的研究都获得了较高的质量分数(80%以上),而成本最小化分析的质量分数一般,CMA获得的最高分数为72%。所有文章的平均质量得分为 75%,介于 52 分和 100 分之间。在四项考虑得分的研究中,有两项研究认为干预措施与常规护理的成本效益相当,一项研究认为干预措施占主导地位,最后一项研究认为常规护理占主导地位。这表明,即使考虑到所纳入研究的质量,基于数字技术的康复干预仍然具有成本效益,它们改善了运动障碍患者的健康状况和生活质量,同时还能节约成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review.

Rehabilitation technologies offer promising opportunities for interventions for patients with motor disabilities. However, their use in routine care remains limited due to their high cost and persistent doubts about their cost-effectiveness. Providing solid evidence of the economic efficiency of rehabilitation technologies would help dispel these doubts in order to better take advantage of these technologies. In this context, this systematic review aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions based on the use of digital technologies. In total, 660 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were identified, of which eleven studies met all the inclusion criteria. Of these eleven studies, seven proved to be cost-effective, while four were not. Four studies used cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and seven used cost-minimization analyses (CMAs). The majority (ten studies) focused on the rehabilitation of the upper and/or lower limbs after a stroke, while only one study examined the rehabilitation of the lower limbs after knee arthroplasty. Regarding the evaluated devices, seven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of robotic rehabilitation and four analyzed rehabilitation with virtual reality.The assessment of the quality of the included studies using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) suggested that the quality was related to the economic analysis method: all studies that adopted a cost-utility analysis obtained a high quality score (above 80%), while the quality scores of the cost-minimization analyses were average, with the highest score obtained by a CMA being 72%. The average quality score of all the articles was 75%, ranging between 52 and 100. Of the four studies with a considering score, two concluded that there was equivalence between the intervention and conventional care in terms of cost-effectiveness, one concluded that the intervention dominated, while the last one concluded that usual care dominated. This suggests that even considering the quality of the included studies, rehabilitation interventions based on digital technologies remain cost-effective, they improved health outcomes and quality of life for patients with motor disorders while also allowing cost savings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信