This study aims to compare knee function, balance, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness within the same group between baseline and six weeks of rehabilitation, as well as between telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation groups.
Participants with OA knee were randomly allocated into 2 groups: in-person group (n = 21) and telerehabilitation group (n = 21). The outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 weeks including knee extensor strength, knee range of motion, time up and go, stair climbing, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Thai version, and cost effectiveness.
No significant difference in patient outcomes was observed between the groups. However, significant changes were found within groups (p0.01). Additionally, the total cost for the telerehabilitation group was significantly lower than the in-person rehabilitation group (p0.05).
Telerehabilitation has been shown to be as effective as in-person rehabilitation in improving pain reduction, knee muscle strength, range of motion, balance, knee function, and quality of life. Additionally, it offers the advantage of reducing travel-related costs and time.
Telerehabilitation is a viable alternative to in-person rehabilitation for patients needing knee rehabilitation. With comparable effectiveness in improving pain reduction, muscle strength, range of motion, balance, and overall quality of life, telerehabilitation offers a practical solution, especially in cases where access to in-person care is limited. Additionally, its ability to reduce travel-related costs and time enhances its appeal, making it a cost-effective option for patients and healthcare systems. Telerehabilitation can therefore broaden access to rehabilitation services without sacrificing treatment quality, providing a convenient and efficient method for delivering care.
OA knee
cost-effectiveness
