IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v14y2024i1d10.1186_s13561-024-00523-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Koffi Adzinyo Agbemanyole

    (IMT Atlantique, LaTIM, UMR INSERM 1101
    IMT Atlantique, Lab-STICC, UMR CNRS 6285)

  • Kokouvi Geovani Agbohessou

    (Univ. Limoges, HAVAE, UR20217)

  • Christelle Pons

    (LaTIM (Laboratory of Medical Information Processing), INSERM UMR 1101 (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité Mixte de Recherche)
    CHU de Brest, Hôpital Morvan
    University of Western Brittany (UBO)
    Pediatric Rehabilitation Department, Fondation Ildys)

  • Philippe Lenca

    (IMT Atlantique, Lab-STICC, UMR CNRS 6285)

  • Olivier Rémy-Néris

    (LaTIM (Laboratory of Medical Information Processing), INSERM UMR 1101 (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité Mixte de Recherche)
    CHU de Brest, Hôpital Morvan
    University of Western Brittany (UBO))

  • Myriam Le Goff-Pronost

    (IMT Atlantique, LaTIM, UMR INSERM 1101)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Koffi Adzinyo Agbemanyole & Kokouvi Geovani Agbohessou & Christelle Pons & Philippe Lenca & Olivier Rémy-Néris & Myriam Le Goff-Pronost, 2024. "Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:14:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-024-00523-5
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-024-00523-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-024-00523-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-024-00523-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    2. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    5. Dongzhe Hong & Lei Si & Minghuan Jiang & Hui Shao & Wai-kit Ming & Yingnan Zhao & Yan Li & Lizheng Shi, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 777-818, June.
    6. Simon Pol & Paula Rojas Garcia & Fernando Antoñanzas Villar & Maarten J. Postma & Antoinette D. I. Asselt, 2021. "Health-Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1355-1363, December.
    7. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Valentina Cambiano & Andrew Phillips & Mark J Sculpher, 2018. "Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies—The example of viral load informed differentiated care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    8. Omar B. Da'ar & Abdi A. Gele, 2023. "Tuberculosis in a weak health system, conflict and fragile zone: The monetary value of human lives lost associated with deaths of persons older than 14 years in Somalia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 53-68, January.
    9. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    11. Nikolai Mühlberger & Gaby Sroczynski & Artemisa Gogollari & Beate Jahn & Nora Pashayan & Ewout Steyerberg & Martin Widschwendter & Uwe Siebert, 2021. "Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1311-1344, November.
    12. Zachary Tirrell & Alicia Norman & Martin Hoyle & Sean Lybrand & Bonny Parkinson, 2024. "Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1287-1300, November.
    13. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.
    14. Cameron Morgan & Cam Donaldson & Emily Lancsar & Stavros Petrou & Lazaros Andronis, 2024. "Considerations Around the Inclusion of Children and Young People’s Time in Economic Evaluation: Findings from an International Delphi Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1267-1277, November.
    15. Dina Jankovic & Pedro Saramago Goncalves & Lina Gega & David Marshall & Kath Wright & Meena Hafidh & Rachel Churchill & Laura Bojke, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 377-388, May.
    16. Boshen Jiao & Zafar Zafari & Brian Will & Kai Ruggeri & Shukai Li & Peter Muennig, 2017. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Lowering Permissible Noise Levels Around U.S. Airports," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1, December.
    17. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2020. "What is it going to be, TTO or SG? A direct test of the validity of health state valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1475-1481, November.
    18. Agbaya Stéphane Serge Oga & Akissi Régine Attia-konan & Fulgence Vehi & Jérôme Kouame & Kouamé Koffi, 2019. "Diabetic and cardiovascular patients’ willingness to pay for upcoming national health insurance scheme in Côte d’Ivoire," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    19. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Valérie Seror, 2018. "Discounting health and money: New evidence using a more robust method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 117-140, April.
    20. B. Rodríguez-Sánchez & L. M. Peña-Longobardo & A. J. Sinclair, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Neuropad device as a screening tool for early diabetic peripheral neuropathy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 335-349, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:14:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-024-00523-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.