Centaine L Snoswell1, Liam J Caffery2, Jennifer A Whitty1,3, H Peter Soyer4,5, Louisa G Gordon6,7,8. 1. School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 2. Centre for Online Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England. 4. Dermatology Research Centre, University of Queensland, University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 6. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 7. School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 8. School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
Importance: International literature has shown that teledermoscopy referral may be a viable method for skin cancer referral; however, no economic investigations have occurred in Australia. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of teledermoscopy as a referral mechanism for skin cancer diagnosis and management in Australia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model of Australian primary care, informed by publicly available data. Interventions: We compared the costs of teledermoscopy referral (electronic referral containing digital dermoscopic images) vs usual care (a written referral letter) for specialist dermatologist review of a suspected skin cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost and time in days to clinical resolution, where clinical resolution was defined as diagnosis by a dermatologist or excision by a general practitioner. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the uncertainty of the main results. Results: Findings from the decision-analytic model showed that the mean time to clinical resolution was 9 days (range, 1-50 days) with teledermoscopy referral compared with 35 days (range, 0-138 days) with usual care alone (difference, 26 days; 95% credible interval [CrI], 13-38 days). The estimated mean cost difference between teledermoscopy referral (A$318.39) vs usual care (A$263.75) was A$54.64 (95% CrI, A$22.69-A$97.35) per person. The incremental cost per day saved to clinical resolution was A$2.10 (95% CrI, A$0.87-A$5.29). Conclusions and Relevance: Using teledermoscopy for skin cancer referral and triage in Australia would cost A$54.64 extra per case on average but would result in clinical resolution 26 days sooner than usual care. Implementation recommendations depend on the preferences of the Australian health system decision makers for either lower cost or expedited clinical resolution. Further research around the clinical significance of expedited clinical resolution and its importance for patients could inform implementation recommendations for the Australian setting.
Importance: International literature has shown that teledermoscopy referral may be a viable method for skin cancer referral; however, no economic investigations have occurred in Australia. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of teledermoscopy as a referral mechanism for skin cancer diagnosis and management in Australia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model of Australian primary care, informed by publicly available data. Interventions: We compared the costs of teledermoscopy referral (electronic referral containing digital dermoscopic images) vs usual care (a written referral letter) for specialist dermatologist review of a suspected skin cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost and time in days to clinical resolution, where clinical resolution was defined as diagnosis by a dermatologist or excision by a general practitioner. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the uncertainty of the main results. Results: Findings from the decision-analytic model showed that the mean time to clinical resolution was 9 days (range, 1-50 days) with teledermoscopy referral compared with 35 days (range, 0-138 days) with usual care alone (difference, 26 days; 95% credible interval [CrI], 13-38 days). The estimated mean cost difference between teledermoscopy referral (A$318.39) vs usual care (A$263.75) was A$54.64 (95% CrI, A$22.69-A$97.35) per person. The incremental cost per day saved to clinical resolution was A$2.10 (95% CrI, A$0.87-A$5.29). Conclusions and Relevance: Using teledermoscopy for skin cancer referral and triage in Australia would cost A$54.64 extra per case on average but would result in clinical resolution 26 days sooner than usual care. Implementation recommendations depend on the preferences of the Australian health system decision makers for either lower cost or expedited clinical resolution. Further research around the clinical significance of expedited clinical resolution and its importance for patients could inform implementation recommendations for the Australian setting.
Authors: Lara Ferrándiz; Teresa Ojeda-Vila; Araceli Corrales; Francisco J Martín-Gutiérrez; Andrés Ruíz-de-Casas; Rafael Galdeano; Ignacio Álvarez-Torralba; Francisco Sánchez-Ibáñez; José M Domínguez-Toro; Fernando Encina; Francisco J Narbona; Juan M Herrerías-Esteban; David Moreno-Ramírez Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Hon S Pak; Santanu K Datta; Crystal A Triplett; Jennifer H Lindquist; Steven C Grambow; John D Whited Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: John D Whited; Russell P Hall; Marjorie E Foy; Laurie E Marbrey; Steven C Grambow; Tara K Dudley; Santanu Datta; David L Simel; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2002 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Alexander Börve; Johan Dahlén Gyllencreutz; Karin Terstappen; Eva Johansson Backman; Anette Aldenbratt; Markus Danielsson; Martin Gillstedt; Carin Sandberg; John Paoli Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.437
Authors: L Ferrándiz; D Moreno-Ramírez; A Ruiz-de-Casas; A Nieto-García; P Moreno-Alvarez; R Galdeano; F M Camacho Journal: Actas Dermosifiliogr Date: 2008-12
Authors: Santanu K Datta; Erin M Warshaw; Karen E Edison; Kush Kapur; Lizy Thottapurathu; Thomas E Moritz; Domenic J Reda; John D Whited Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282
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; Monica L Taylor; Tracy A Comans; Anthony C Smith; Leonard C Gray; Liam J Caffery Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: George N Okoli; Otto L T Lam; Viraj K Reddy; Leslie Copstein; Nicole Askin; Anubha Prashad; Jennifer Stiff; Satya Rashi Khare; Robyn Leonard; Wasifa Zarin; Andrea C Tricco; Ahmed M Abou-Setta Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gehan A Pendlebury; Peter Oro; William Haynes; Drew Merideth; Samantha Bartling; Michelle A Bongiorno Journal: Dermatopathology (Basel) Date: 2022-06-29