Key result
An off-the-shelf exergame intervention did not significantly differ from motivational support in 1-year hospitalizations (P=0.60) or costs (P=0.73) among patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
Exergaming is promising for patients with heart failure less inclined to traditional exercise, but insights into intervention-related costs were needed to guide further development.
Does an off-the-shelf exergame intervention reduce hospital use and costs in patients with heart failure?
RCT (n=605)
Does an off-the-shelf exergame intervention reduce hospital use and costs in patients with heart failure?
p-value: p=0.60 for hospitalizations, 0.73 for costs
An off-the-shelf exergame intervention in heart failure patients has relatively low costs and high patient willingness to pay, though it does not significantly reduce hospitalizations or healthcare costs.
Exergames confer no hospitalization or cost benefit over motivational support in heart failure; challenges assumptions of added value and informs future intervention trials.
Objectives: Exergaming is promising for patients with heart failure who are less inclined to start or maintain exercise programs involving traditional modes of physical activity. Although no effect on exercise capacity was found for an off-the-shelf exergame, it is important to gain insights into aspects related to costs to develop such interventions further. Materials and Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, the Heart Failure Wii study (HF-Wii study), the intervention group (exergame group) received an introduction to the exergame, the exergame was installed at home and help was offered when needed for 3 months. Patients received telephone follow-ups at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the installation. The control group (motivational support group) received activity advice and telephone follow-ups at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. We collected data on hospital use and costs, costs of the exergame intervention, patient time-related costs, and willingness to pay. Results: No significant differences were found between the exergame group (n = 300) versus the motivational support group (n = 305) in hospital use or costs (1-year number of hospitalizations: P = 0.60, costs: P = 0.73). The cost of the intervention was 190 Euros, and the patient time-related costs were 98 Euros. Of the total estimated costs for the intervention, 287 Euros, patients were willing to pay, on average, 58%. Conclusion: This study shows that the costs of an intervention using an off-the-shelve exergame are relatively low and that the patients were willing to pay for more than half of the intervention costs. The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01785121).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klompstra et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=605). Off-the-shelf exergame vs. Motivational support (activity advice and telephone follow-ups) was evaluated on 1-year number of hospitalizations and costs (p=0.60 for hospitalizations, 0.73 for costs). An off-the-shelf exergame intervention did not significantly differ from motivational support in 1-year hospitalizations (P=0.60) or costs (P=0.73) among patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: