Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDel Pino Sáez, Rocío
dc.contributor.authorDíez Cirarda, María
dc.contributor.authorUstarroz Aguirre, Iker
dc.contributor.authorGonzález Larragán, Susana
dc.contributor.authorCaprino, Massimo
dc.contributor.authorBusnatu, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorGand, Kai
dc.contributor.authorSchlieter, Hannes
dc.contributor.authorGabilondo Cuellar, Iñigo
dc.contributor.authorGómez Esteban, Juan Carlos
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-30T18:33:33Z
dc.date.available2023-01-30T18:33:33Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Medicine 9 : (2022) // Article ID 832229es_ES
dc.identifier.issn2296-858X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/59566
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Telerehabilitation in neurological and cardiological diseases is an alternative rehabilitation that improves the quality of life and health conditions of patients and enhances the accessibility to health care. However, despite the reported benefits of telerehabilitation, it is necessary to study its impact on the healthcare system. Methods: The systematic review aims to investigate the costs and results of telerehabilitation in neurological and cardiological diseases. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from 2005 to 2021, for studies that assess the costs and results of telerehabilitation compared to traditional rehabilitation (center-based programs) in neurological and cardiological diseases. A narrative synthesis of results was carried out. Results: A total of 8 studies (865 participants) of 430 records were included. Three studies were related to the costs and results of telerehabilitation in neurological diseases (specifically in stroke). In total, five studies assessed telerehabilitation in cardiological diseases (chronic heart failure, coronary heart disease, acute coronary syndrome, and cardiovascular diseases). The duration of the telerehabilitation ranged from 6 to 48 weeks. The studies included cost-analysis, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility. In total, four studies found significant cost/savings per person between $565.66 and $2,352.00 (p < 0.05). In contrast, most studies found differences in costs and clinical effects between the telerehabilitation performed and the rehabilitation performed at the clinic. Just one study found quality-adjusted life years (QALY) significant differences between groups [Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY ($-21,666.41/QALY). Discussion: Telerehabilitation is an excellent alternative to traditional center rehabilitation, which increases the accessibility to rehabilitation to more people, either due to the geographical situation of the patients or the limitations of the health systems. Telerehabilitation seems to be as clinical and cost-effective as traditional rehabilitation, even if, generally, telerehabilitation is less costly. More research is needed to evaluate health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness in other neurological diseases.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement no: 769807.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherFrontiers Mediaes_ES
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/769807es_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectcost-effectivenesses_ES
dc.subjecttelerehabilitationes_ES
dc.subjectcardiological diseaseses_ES
dc.subjectneurological diseasees_ES
dc.subjectsystematic reviewes_ES
dc.titleCosts and effects of telerehabilitation in neurological and cardiological diseases: A systematic reviewes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2022 Del Pino, Díez-Cirarda, Ustarroz-Aguirre, Gonzalez-Larragan, Caprino, Busnatu, Gand, Schlieter, Gabilondo and Gómez-Esteban. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.es_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.832229/fulles_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fmed.2022.832229
dc.contributor.funderEuropean Commission
dc.departamentoesNeurocienciases_ES
dc.departamentoeuNeurozientziakes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2022 Del Pino, Díez-Cirarda,
Ustarroz-Aguirre, Gonzalez-Larragan,
Caprino, Busnatu, Gand, Schlieter,
Gabilondo and Gómez-Esteban. This is
an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in
other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is
cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which
does not comply with these terms.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2022 Del Pino, Díez-Cirarda, Ustarroz-Aguirre, Gonzalez-Larragan, Caprino, Busnatu, Gand, Schlieter, Gabilondo and Gómez-Esteban. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.