Home-based digital exercise versus hospital physiotherapy for plantar fasciitis: a propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort study with dual-perspective cost-utility evaluation.
Wenbo Xu, Lufeng Yao, Haigang Wang and 6 others
PMID 42683610WHAT IT FOUND
For adults with plantar fasciitis who chose a home app-delivered exercise programme over hospital physiotherapy, 3-month first-step pain was similar and slightly lower, and costs were less.
The groups were not randomised, so this is not proof the programme caused the difference.
Key findings
01In the matched cohort, the home digital programme met the prespecified non-inferiority target for 3-month first-step morning pain against hospital physiotherapy, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.63 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.35).
02Over 12 months, mean payer costs were ¥3,163 for digital and ¥8,083 for hospital; mean societal costs were ¥16,956 and ¥23,964 respectively.
03After matching, only body mass index reached |SMD| < 0.10, while e-prescription flag (0.69), age (0.56), mobile app booking (0.54) and urban residence (0.48) remained imbalanced.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Patients chose pathway based on preference, geography and scheduling, not randomisation, so groups may differ in ways that affect pain recovery. Propensity matching did not meet balance target: only BMI had |SMD| below 0.10 after matching; digital patients remained younger, more urban, better educated, more likely to book by app and have e-prescription. Only 587 of 9,373 screened patients with M72.2 diagnosis (6.3%) had complete records, so selection bias is likely and results apply to patients with complete tertiary-hospital records. The matched analysis estimates effect among patients resembling digital adopters, not all hospital patients. Unmeasured confounders such as digital literacy, smartphone ownership, prior app use, self-efficacy, health literacy and motivation were not adjusted. Adherence was measured differently: app logged sessions averaged 71.1% versus clinic attendance 77.4%. Only 25.8% digital and 47.3% hospital completed at least 80% of sessions. The per-protocol analysis was underpowered. Loss to follow-up by 12 months was 10.9% digital and 27.0% hospital, which could bias results if dropout was related to outcome. Single-centre urban eastern China tertiary hospital; uncertain for primary care, rural settings, older populations and low-digital-literacy groups. The non-inferiority margin framework assumes randomisation; in observational data, residual confounding and selection bias can still affect the conclusion. The 12-month horizon does not establish long-term recurrence or cost offsets. An unmeasured confounder would need a strong association, with E-value 2.84 and lower confidence limit 2.03, to explain the difference, but joint confounding could be larger.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest were declared. Funding was from the Ningbo Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics. The authors state no financial support was received from Joymotion or other commercial entity.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the app alone caused lower pain and costs. The digital pathway included app videos, weekly therapist check-ins, adherence logs and symptom-triggered escalation rules; the hospital pathway included face-to-face sessions, manual therapy and clinic modalities, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.