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

Remedios López-Liria, María Ángeles Valverde-Martínez, Antonio López-Villegas, Rafael Jesús Bautista-Mesa, Francisco Antonio Vega-Ramírez, Salvador Peiró and Cesar Leal-Costa
Additional contact information
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

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 5, 1-18

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.

Keywords: cost–benefit analysis; follow-up studies; health-related quality of life; pacemakers; teledermatology; telemedicine (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2534/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2534/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2534-:d:755757

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().