Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Telerehabilitation to Standard Care for Ankle Sprains Compared with Standard Care Alone
Background: Ankle sprain (AS) is a common musculoskeletal injury. While telerehabilitation is an effective treatment for various musculoskeletal conditions, evidence on its cost-effectiveness for AS is lacking. Methods: A cost-effectiveness study was conducted through a 4-week randomized controlled...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Mary Ann Liebert
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Telemedicine Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/tmr.2025.0010 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: Ankle sprain (AS) is a common musculoskeletal injury. While telerehabilitation is an effective treatment for various musculoskeletal conditions, evidence on its cost-effectiveness for AS is lacking. Methods: A cost-effectiveness study was conducted through a 4-week randomized controlled trial in individuals with AS. The control group (n = 41) received standard care, while the intervention group (n = 41) received standard care plus asynchronous telerehabilitation. Effectiveness was measured using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) with subscales for daily living (FAAM-ADL) and sports activities (FAAM-sports). The economic evaluation used the Mexican health system’s official price list, including work incapacity costs, updated to 2024 (U.S. dollars). A one-way sensitivity analysis was also performed. Results: At 4 weeks, the intervention group showed a gain of 78 points in functionality for FAAM-ADL and 80.2 points for FAAM-sports, while the control group scored 69.1 and 61.6, respectively. When the costs of work incapacity were considered, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of adding telerehabilitation per point gained in FAAM-ADL functionality was US$ −14.4 and US$ −8.5 for FAAM-sports. When work incapacity costs were excluded, the ICER was US$ −0.7 and US$ −0.4, respectively. Conclusions: Adding telerehabilitation to standard care for AS was cost-saving, achieving greater effectiveness at a lower cost. This is more evident when direct costs are considered together with the costs of work incapacity. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2692-4366 |