Search

IntroductionTelerehabilitation 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsA 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).DiscussionTelerehabilitation 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.Systematic review registration[https://figshare.com/articles/journal_ contribution/Review_Protocol_Costs_and_effects_of_Telerehabilitation_in_ Neurological_and_Cardiological_Diseases_A_Systematic_Review/19619838], identifier [19619838].

IntroductionA substantial proportion of individuals with low cardiovascular risk receive inappropriate statin prescription for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) instead of the evidence-based recommendations to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors. This study reports on the structured process performed to design targeted de-implementation strategies to reduce inappropriate prescription of statins and to increase healthy lifestyle promotion in low cardiovascular risk patients in Primary Care (PC).MethodsA formative study was conducted based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW). It comprised semi-structured interviews with PC professionals to define the problem in behavioral terms; focus groups with Family Physicians and patients to identify the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of inappropriate statin prescription and of healthy lifestyle promotion practice; mapping of behavioral change interventions operationalized as de-implementation strategies for addressing identified determinants; and consensus techniques for prioritization of strategies based on perceived effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability.ResultsIdentified key determinants of statin prescription and healthy lifestyle promotion were: the lack of time and clinical inertia, external resources, patients' preferences and characteristics, limitation of available clinical tools and guidelines, social pressures, fears about negative consequences of not treating, and lack of skills and training of professionals. Fourteen potential de-implementation strategies were mapped to the identified determinants and the following were prioritized: 1) non-reflective decision assistance strategies based on reminders and decision support tools for helping clinical decision-making; 2) decision information strategies based on the principles of knowledge dissemination (e.g., corporative diffusion of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines and Pathways for CVD primary prevention); 3) reflective decision-making restructuring strategies (i.e., audit and feedback provided along with intention formation interventions).ConclusionsThis study supports the usefulness of the BCW to guide the design and development of de-implementation strategies targeting the determinants of clinicians' decision-making processes to favor the abandonment of low-value practices and the uptake of those recommended for CVD primary prevention in low-risk patients. Further research to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of selected strategies is warranted.Clinical trial registrationSanchez A. De-implementation of Low-value Pharmacological Prescriptions (De-imFAR). ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04022850. Registered July 17, 2019. In: ClinicalTrials.gov. Bethesda (MD): U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04022850.

Abstract Background De-implementation or abandonment of ineffective or low-value healthcare is becoming a priority research field globally due to the growing empirical evidence of the high prevalence of such care and its impact in terms of patient safety and social inefficiency. Little is known, however, about the factors, barriers, and facilitators involved or about interventions that are effective in promoting and accelerating the de-implementation of low-value healthcare. The De-imFAR study seeks to carry out a structured, evidence-based, and theory-informed process involving the main stakeholders (clinicians, managers, patients, and researchers) for the design, deployment, and assessment of de-implementation strategies for reducing low-value pharmacological prescribing. Methods A phase I formative study using a systematic and comprehensive framework based on theory and evidence for the design of implementation strategies—specifically, the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW)—will be conducted to design and model de-implementation strategies to favor reductions in low-value pharmacological prescribing of statins in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by main stakeholders (clinicians, managers, patients, and researchers) in a collegiate way. Subsequently, a phase II comparative hybrid trial will be conducted to assess the feasibility and potential effectiveness of at least one active de-implementation strategy to reduce low-value pharmacological prescribing of statins in primary prevention of CVD compared to the usual procedures for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines (“what-not-to-do” recommendations). A mixed-methods evaluation will be used: quantitative for the results of the implementation at the professional level (e.g., adoption, reach and implementation or execution of the recommended clinical practice); and qualitative to determine the feasibility and perceived impact of the de-implementation strategies from the clinicians’ perspective, and patients’ experiences related to the clinical care received. Discussion The DE-imFAR study aims to generate valid scientific knowledge about the design and development of de-implementation strategies using theory- and evidence-based methodologies suggested by implementation science. It will explore the effectiveness of these strategies and their acceptability among clinicians, policymakers, and patients. Its ultimate goal is to maximize the quality and efficiency of our health system by abandoning low-value pharmacological prescribing. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04022850. Registered 17 July 2019