Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T03:58:18.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-analysis of virtual reality training based on the Virtual Reality for Upper Extremity in Subacute stroke (VIRTUES) trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

M. Kamrul Islam  and
Iris Brunner Open the ORCID record for Iris Brunner [Opens in a new window]
M. Kamrul Islam
Affiliation:
NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Nygårdsgaten 112, 5008 Bergen, Norway
Iris Brunner*
Affiliation:
Hammel Neurocenter, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, 8450 Hammel, Denmark
*
Author for correspondence: Iris Brunner, E-mail: Iris.Brunner@rm.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

Stroke is a major cause of lasting disability worldwide. Virtual reality (VR) training has been introduced as a means of increasing the effectiveness of rehabilitation by providing large doses of task-related training with many repetitions and different modes of feedback. As VR is increasingly used in neurorehabilitation, cost considerations are important.

Methods

A cost-analysis was conducted based on the Virtual Reality for Upper Extremity in Subacute stroke (VIRTUES) trial, a recent international randomized controlled observer-blind multicenter trial. Average therapist time required per therapy session may differ between VR and conventional training (CT), leading to potential cost savings due to a therapist being able to supervise more than one patient at a time. Exploratory cost analyses are presented to explore such assumptions.

Results

Based on our calculations, VR incurs extra costs as compared with CT when the same amount of therapist contact is provided, as was the case in VIRTUES. However, the exploratory analyses demonstrated that these costs may be rapidly counterbalanced when time for therapist supervision can be reduced.

Conclusions

Extra costs for VR can be outweighed by reduced therapist time and decreasing VR system costs in the nearer future, and not least by increased patient motivation.

Keywords

Virtual realityStrokeRehabilitationCost analysis
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , 2019 , pp. 373 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: The Norwegian Research Council funded the VIRTUES trial on which these calculations are based.

References

1.Feigin, VL, Krishnamurthi, RV, Parmar, P, et al. (2015) Update on the global burden of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke in 1990–2013: the GBD 2013 study. Neuroepidemiology. 45(3), 161–176.Google Scholar
2.Ghatnekar, O, Persson, U, Asplund, K, Glader, EL (2014) Costs for stroke in Sweden 2009 and developments since 1997. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 30(2), 203–209.Google Scholar
3.Ma, VY, Chan, L, Carruthers, KJ (2014) Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 95(5), 986–995.e1.Google Scholar
4.Feigin, VL, Norrving, B, George, MG, et al. (2016) Prevention of stroke: a strategic global imperative. Nat Rev Neurol. 12(9), 501–512.Google Scholar
5.Laver, KE, Lange, B, George, S, et al. (2017) Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 11, CD008349.Google Scholar
6.Fluet, GG, Deutsch, JE (2013) Virtual reality for sensorimotor rehabilitation post-stroke: the promise and current state of the field. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 1(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
7.Levin, MF, Weiss, PL, Keshner, EA (2015) Emergence of virtual reality as a tool for upper limb rehabilitation: incorporation of motor control and motor learning principles. Phys Ther. 95(3), 415–425.Google Scholar
8.Brunner, I, Skouen, JS, Hofstad, H, et al. (2016) Is upper limb virtual reality training more intensive than conventional training for patients in the subacute phase after stroke? An analysis of treatment intensity and content. BMC Neurol. 16(1), 219.Google Scholar
9.Eng, K, Siekierka, E, Pyk, P, et al. (2007) Interactive visuo-motor therapy system for stroke rehabilitation. Med Biol Eng Comput. 45(9), 901–907.Google Scholar
10.Saposnik, G, Cohen, LG, Mamdani, M, et al. (2016) Efficacy and safety of non-immersive virtual reality exercising in stroke rehabilitation (EVREST): a randomised, multicentre, single-blind, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 15(10), 1019–1027.Google Scholar
11.Brunner, I, Skouen, JS, Hofstad, H, et al. (2014) Virtual reality training for upper extremity in subacute stroke (VIRTUES): study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter trial. BMC Neurol. 14, 186.Google Scholar
12.Brunner, I (2017) Virtual Reality Training for Upper Extremity in Subacute Stroke (VIRTUES): a multicenter RCT. Neurology. 89, 1–9.Google Scholar
13.Standen, PJ, Threapleton, K, Richardson, A, et al. (2017) A low cost virtual reality system for home based rehabilitation of the arm following stroke: a randomised controlled feasibility trial. Clin Rehabil. 31(3), 340–350.Google Scholar
14.Wittmann, F, Held, JP, Lambercy, O, et al. (2016) Self-directed arm therapy at home after stroke with a sensor-based virtual reality training system. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 13(1), 75.Google Scholar
15.Thomson, K, Pollock, A, Bugge, C, Brady, MC (2016) Commercial gaming devices for stroke upper limb rehabilitation: a survey of current practice. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 11(6), 454–461.Google Scholar
16.Schneider, EJ, Lannin, NA, Ada, L, Schmidt, J (2016) Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother. 62(4), 182–187.Google Scholar
17.Lohse, KR, Lang, CE, Boyd, LA (2014) Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 45(7), 2053–2058.Google Scholar
18.Kwakkel, G, Kollen, B (2007) Predicting improvement in the upper paretic limb after stroke: a longitudinal prospective study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 25(5–6), 453–460.Google Scholar
19.Verheyden, G, Nieuwboer, A, De Wit, L, et al. (2008) Time course of trunk, arm, leg, and functional recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 22(2), 173–179.Google Scholar
20.Krakauer, JW, Carmichael, ST, Corbett, D, Wittenberg, GF (2012) Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 26(8), 923–931.Google Scholar
21.Sjoholm, A, Skarin, M, Churilov, L, et al. (2014) Sedentary behaviour and physical activity of people with stroke in rehabilitation hospitals. Stroke Res Treat. 2014:591897.Google Scholar
22.Bernhardt, J, Dewey, H, Thrift, A, Donnan, G (2004) Inactive and alone: physical activity within the first 14 days of acute stroke unit care. Stroke. 35(4), 1005–1009.Google Scholar