Santanu K Datta1, Erin M Warshaw2, Karen E Edison3, Kush Kapur4, Lizy Thottapurathu5, Thomas E Moritz5, Domenic J Reda5, John D Whited1. 1. Research and Development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina2Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis4Dermatology Service, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. Department of Dermatology, University of Missouri, Columbia. 4. Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The costs and utility of teledermatology are important features of implementation. Such an analysis requires a description of the perspective of the entity that will bear the cost. OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and utility of a store-and-forward teledermatology referral process compared with a conventional referral process from the perspectives of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and society. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred ninety-one randomized participants were referred from remote sites of primary care to the dermatology services of 2 VA medical facilities for ambulatory skin conditions from December 2008 through June 2010, and follow-up was completed in March 2011. The time trade-off utility measures and costs were collected during a 9-month period among participants in a 2-site parallel group randomized clinical trial. The perspectives of the VA and society were evaluated. The multiple imputation procedure or weighted means were used for missing data elements. Data were analyzed from January to July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Referrals were managed using store-and-forward teledermatology or a conventional text-based referral process. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total costs from the perspectives of the VA and society incurred during the 9-month follow-up were used to derive per-participant costs. Utility, using the time trade-off method, was the measure of effectiveness. RESULTS: From the VA perspective, the total cost for conventional referrals was $66 145 (minimum, $58 697; maximum, $71 635), or $338 (SD, $291) per participant (196 participants); the total cost for teledermatology referrals was $59 917 (mimimum, $51 794; maximum, $70 398), or $308 (SD, $298) per participant (195 participants). The $30 difference in per-participant cost was not statistically significant (95% CI, -$79 to $20). From the societal perspective, the total cost for conventional referrals was $106 194 (minimum, $98 746; maximum, $111 684), or $542 (SD, $403) per participant (196 participants); the total cost for teledermatology referrals was $89 523 (minimum, $81 400; maximum, $100 400) or $460 (SD, $428) per participant. This $82 difference in per-participant cost was statistically significant (95% CI, -$12 to -$152). From baseline to the 9-month follow-up, the time trade-off utility value improved by 0.02 in the conventional referral group and 0.03 in the teledermatology group. This difference was not statistically significant (P = .50). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with conventional referrals, store-and-forward teledermatology referrals were performed at a comparable cost (VA perspective) or at a lower cost (societal perspective) with no evidence of a difference in utility as measured by the time trade-off method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00488293.
IMPORTANCE: The costs and utility of teledermatology are important features of implementation. Such an analysis requires a description of the perspective of the entity that will bear the cost. OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and utility of a store-and-forward teledermatology referral process compared with a conventional referral process from the perspectives of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and society. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred ninety-one randomized participants were referred from remote sites of primary care to the dermatology services of 2 VA medical facilities for ambulatory skin conditions from December 2008 through June 2010, and follow-up was completed in March 2011. The time trade-off utility measures and costs were collected during a 9-month period among participants in a 2-site parallel group randomized clinical trial. The perspectives of the VA and society were evaluated. The multiple imputation procedure or weighted means were used for missing data elements. Data were analyzed from January to July 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Referrals were managed using store-and-forward teledermatology or a conventional text-based referral process. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total costs from the perspectives of the VA and society incurred during the 9-month follow-up were used to derive per-participant costs. Utility, using the time trade-off method, was the measure of effectiveness. RESULTS: From the VA perspective, the total cost for conventional referrals was $66 145 (minimum, $58 697; maximum, $71 635), or $338 (SD, $291) per participant (196 participants); the total cost for teledermatology referrals was $59 917 (mimimum, $51 794; maximum, $70 398), or $308 (SD, $298) per participant (195 participants). The $30 difference in per-participant cost was not statistically significant (95% CI, -$79 to $20). From the societal perspective, the total cost for conventional referrals was $106 194 (minimum, $98 746; maximum, $111 684), or $542 (SD, $403) per participant (196 participants); the total cost for teledermatology referrals was $89 523 (minimum, $81 400; maximum, $100 400) or $460 (SD, $428) per participant. This $82 difference in per-participant cost was statistically significant (95% CI, -$12 to -$152). From baseline to the 9-month follow-up, the time trade-off utility value improved by 0.02 in the conventional referral group and 0.03 in the teledermatology group. This difference was not statistically significant (P = .50). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with conventional referrals, store-and-forward teledermatology referrals were performed at a comparable cost (VA perspective) or at a lower cost (societal perspective) with no evidence of a difference in utility as measured by the time trade-off method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00488293.
Authors: Robin H Wang; John S Barbieri; Harrison P Nguyen; Robert Stavert; Howard P Forman; Jean L Bolognia; Carrie L Kovarik Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Centaine L Snoswell; Liam J Caffery; Jennifer A Whitty; H Peter Soyer; Louisa G Gordon Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Neha N Jariwala; Christopher K Snider; Shivan J Mehta; J Kyle Armstrong; Aaron Smith-McLallen; Junko Takeshita; Carrie L Kovarik; Jules B Lipoff Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Allison A Lewinski; Caitlin Sullivan; Kelli D Allen; Matthew J Crowley; Jennifer M Gierisch; Karen M Goldstein; Kaileigh Gray; Susan N Hastings; George L Jackson; Felicia McCant; Abigail Shapiro; Matthew Tucker; Carolyn Turvey; Leah L Zullig; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: April W Armstrong; Adam R Ford; Cindy J Chambers; Emanual Maverakis; Cory A Dunnick; Mary-Margaret Chren; Joel M Gelfand; Caitlin M Gibbons; Brittany M Gibbons; Christianne J Lane Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Ana Rita J Maria; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Gemma Villanueva; Marita S Fønhus; Claire Glenton; Simon Lewin; Nicholas Henschke; Brian S Buckley; Garrett L Mehl; Tigest Tamrat; Sasha Shepperd Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-08-18
Authors: Jennifer L Pecina; Kirk D Wyatt; Nneka I Comfere; Matthew E Bernard; Frederick North Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.773