IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i5p2534-d755757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Teledermatology versus Face-to-Face Dermatology: An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness from Eight Studies from Europe and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Remedios López-Liria

    (Health Research Centre, Department of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Medicine, University of Almería, Carretera del Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain)

  • María Ángeles Valverde-Martínez

    (Health Research Centre, Department of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Medicine, University of Almería, Carretera del Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain)

  • Antonio López-Villegas

    (Social Involvement of Critical and Emergency Medicine, CTS-609 Research Group, Poniente Hospital, 04700 El Ejido, Spain)

  • Rafael Jesús Bautista-Mesa

    (Economic-Financial Directorate, Alto Guadalquivir Health Agency, 23740 Andujar, Spain)

  • Francisco Antonio Vega-Ramírez

    (Hum-498 Research Team, University of Almeria, 04120 Almeria, Spain)

  • Salvador Peiró

    (Health Services Research Unit, FISABIO-Public Health, 46020 Valencia, Spain)

  • Cesar Leal-Costa

    (Nursing Department, University of Murcia, 30120 El Palmar, Spain)

Abstract

(1) Background: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two follow-up methods (face-to-face and telemedicine) used in dermatology in the last ten years. (2) Methods: A search for articles that included economic analyses was conducted in August 2021 in the databases PubMed, Medline, Scielo and Scopus using the following keywords: “Cost–Benefit Analysis”, “Dermatology”, “Telemedicine”, “Primary Health Care”, as well as other search terms and following the PICOS eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Three clinical trials and five observational studies were analyzed, providing information for approximately 16,539 patients (including four cost-minimization or saving analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and one cost–utility analysis) in Europe and the United States. They describe the follow-up procedures in each of the cases and measure and analyze the direct and indirect costs and effectiveness. All the articles indicate that teledermatology lowers costs and proves satisfactory to both patients and professionals. (4) Conclusions: Although it has been found that follow-up via teledermatology can be more efficient than traditional hospital follow-up, more work is needed to establish evaluation protocols and procedures that measure key variables more equally and demonstrate the quality of the evidence of said studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Remedios López-Liria & María Ángeles Valverde-Martínez & Antonio López-Villegas & Rafael Jesús Bautista-Mesa & Francisco Antonio Vega-Ramírez & Salvador Peiró & Cesar Leal-Costa, 2022. "Teledermatology versus Face-to-Face Dermatology: An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness from Eight Studies from Europe and the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2534-:d:755757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2534/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2534/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Waschkau & Pia Traulsen & Jost Steinhäuser, 2022. "Evaluation of Synchronous and Asynchronous Telemedical Applications in Primary Care in Rural Regions of Northern Germany—Results and Lessons Learned from a Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-11, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2534-:d:755757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.