Cited by 73Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Systems and Technology

Cost and Utility Analysis of a Store-and-Forward Teledermatology Referral System: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Datta, Santanu K., Warshaw, Erin M., Edison, Karen E., Kapur, Kush, Thottapurathu, Lizy, Moritz, Thomas E., Reda, Domenic J., Whited, John D.·2015·JAMA Dermatology

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.2362

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Datta, S. K., Warshaw, E. M., Edison, K. E., Kapur, K., Thottapurathu, L., Moritz, T. E., Reda, D. J., & Whited, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (US)
Venue
JAMA Dermatology
Published
2015-12-01
Volume
151
Issue
12
Pages
1323
ISSN
2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123692745
Cited by
72
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
store-and-forward teledermatology, dermatology referral, cost analysis, health utility, time trade-off, veterans, primary care referral, cost-effectiveness, societal perspective, Department of Veterans Affairs, telehealth implementation, cost per participant, cost per quality-adjusted life year

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review