Costs and cost effectiveness of the use of telerehabilitation training for upper limb function in people after stroke: A systematic review.
Daim Syukriyah, Jemma Perks, Phil McBride et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review examined costs and cost-effectiveness of technology-based telerehabilitation for upper limb function after stroke. It included 15 studies with 963 participants, identified through searches of MEDLINE, EconLit, and EMBASE. Two studies assessed cost-effectiveness, eight reported costs, and six used EQ-5D, with overlap between categories. Findings were mixed, although several studies suggested potential cost savings. Cost reporting mainly covered therapist time and equipment, while EQ-5D outcomes were reported inconsistently.
Key findings
- The review included 15 studies and 963 participants; two conducted cost-effectiveness analyses and eight reported cost analyses.
- Evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness was mixed, but several studies suggested potential cost savings.
- Studies primarily reported therapist time and equipment costs; few included maintenance, depreciation, or internet-enabled device costs.
- Six studies used EQ-5D, but reporting of these outcomes was inconsistent.
Why it matters
Telerehabilitation may reduce therapist time enough to offset technology costs, but the available evidence does not establish consistent cost-effectiveness. Incomplete accounting for equipment-related expenses and inconsistent reporting of preference-based outcomes make comparisons difficult. These findings highlight the need for fuller cost measurement and longer-term evaluation when considering the economic implications of remote upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke.
What to keep in mind
The review found few cost-effectiveness analyses, inconsistent EQ-5D reporting, and limited inclusion of equipment maintenance, depreciation, and internet-enabled device costs.