BACKGROUND: Diabetic eye complications are the leading cause of visual loss among working-aged people. Pharmacy-based teleophthalmology has emerged as a possible alternative to in-person examination that may facilitate compliance with evidence-based recommendations and reduce barriers to specialized eye care. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mobile teleophthalmology screening compared with in-person examination (primary care) for the diabetic population residing in semiurban areas of southwestern Ontario. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed to compare in-person examination (comparator program) versus pharmacy-based teleophthalmology (intervention program). The economic model was designed to identify patients with more than minimal diabetic retinopathy, manifested by at least 1 microaneurysm at examination (modified Airlie House classification grade of ≥ 20). Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case detected (true-positive result) and cost per case correctly diagnosed (including true-positive and true-negative results). RESULTS: The cost per case detected was $510 with in-person examination and $478 with teleophthalmology, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $107 and $102 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $314 per additional case detected and $73 per additional case correctly diagnosed. Use of pharmacologic dilation and health care specialists' fees were the most important cost drivers. INTERPRETATION: The study showed that a compound teleophthalmology program in a semiurban community would be more effective but more costly than in-person examination. The findings raise the question of whether the benefits of pharmacy-based teleophthalmology in semiurban areas, where in-person examination is still available, are equivalent to those observed in remote communities. Further study is needed to investigate the impact of this program on the prevention of severe vision loss and quality of life in a semiurban setting.
BACKGROUND:Diabetic eye complications are the leading cause of visual loss among working-aged people. Pharmacy-based teleophthalmology has emerged as a possible alternative to in-person examination that may facilitate compliance with evidence-based recommendations and reduce barriers to specialized eye care. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mobile teleophthalmology screening compared with in-person examination (primary care) for the diabetic population residing in semiurban areas of southwestern Ontario. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed to compare in-person examination (comparator program) versus pharmacy-based teleophthalmology (intervention program). The economic model was designed to identify patients with more than minimal diabetic retinopathy, manifested by at least 1 microaneurysm at examination (modified Airlie House classification grade of ≥ 20). Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case detected (true-positive result) and cost per case correctly diagnosed (including true-positive and true-negative results). RESULTS: The cost per case detected was $510 with in-person examination and $478 with teleophthalmology, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $107 and $102 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $314 per additional case detected and $73 per additional case correctly diagnosed. Use of pharmacologic dilation and health care specialists' fees were the most important cost drivers. INTERPRETATION: The study showed that a compound teleophthalmology program in a semiurban community would be more effective but more costly than in-person examination. The findings raise the question of whether the benefits of pharmacy-based teleophthalmology in semiurban areas, where in-person examination is still available, are equivalent to those observed in remote communities. Further study is needed to investigate the impact of this program on the prevention of severe vision loss and quality of life in a semiurban setting.
Authors: M Porta; A Rizzitiello; M Tomalino; M Trento; P Passera; A Minonne; F Pomero; S Gamba; R Castellazzi; M Montanaro; R Sivieri; R Orsi; P Bondonio; G M Molinatti Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: J A Olson; F M Strachan; J H Hipwell; K A Goatman; K C McHardy; J V Forrester; P F Sharp Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Delaney M Curran; Brian Y Kim; Natasha Withers; Donald S Shepard; Christopher J Brady Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 5.033