Home-based digital exercise versus hospital physiotherapy for plantar fasciitis: a propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort study with dual-perspective cost-utility evaluation
- Journal
- Journal of rehabilitation medicine (Q1)
- Published
- 2 September 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Wenbo Xu, Lufeng Yao, Haigang Wang, Chenqin Xu, Pinpin He, Yi Zhang, et al.
- PMID
- 42683610
- DOI
- 10.2340/jrm.v58.45974
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Rehabilitation (top studies of the week, 6 September 2026): Plantar fasciitis digital exercise, unrelated to stroke rehab
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-week home-based digital exercise programme with 12-week hospital-supervised physiotherapy for plantar fasciitis in routine Chinese tertiary-hospital care. DESIGN: Single-centre retrospective cohort study with 1:2 propensity-score matching on 13 baseline covariates. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: 587 adults with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of plantar fasciitis treated in 2022-2024 were matched. METHODS: The primary outcome was first-step morning pain at 3 months on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (non-inferiority margin 1.3 points; sensitivity margins 0.9 and 1.9). A 12-month cost-utility analysis took payer and societal perspectives. RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference was -0.63 points (95% confidence interval -0.92 to -0.35; p < 0.001), non-inferior against all 3 margins (E-value 2.84). Incremental payer cost was -¥4,920 (-US$684), incremental societal cost -¥7,008 (-US$974), and incremental quality-adjusted life-years +0.011, with dominance in 96.7% of bootstrap replications. CONCLUSION: Home-based digital exercise was non-inferior for 3-month first-step pain and less costly from both perspectives. Matching left 12 of 13 covariates imbalanced and only 6.3% of screened patients were eligible, so residual confounding and selection bias are likely. These observational findings are provisional and require confirmation in a pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial before informing reimbursement.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.