↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of Store-and-Forward Teledermatology: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Dermatology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of Store-and-Forward Teledermatology: A Systematic Review
Published in
JAMA Dermatology, June 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0525
Pubmed ID
Authors

Centaine Snoswell, Anna Finnane, Monika Janda, H. Peter Soyer, Jennifer A. Whitty

Abstract

Teledermatology is a topical clinical approach being tested in Australia and elsewhere. With most dermatologists residing in metropolitan areas, teledermatology provides an apparent low-cost and convenient means of access for individuals living outside these areas. It is important that any proposed new addition to a health care system is assessed on the grounds of economic cost and effectiveness. To summarize and evaluate the current economic evidence comparing store-and-forward teledermatology (S&FTD) with conventional face-to-face care. Search terms with appropriate amendments were used to identify S&FTD articles that included economic analysis. Six databases were searched, and title, abstract and full-text reviews were conducted by 2 researchers. References of all unique returned articles were searched by hand. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to evaluate quality of the included articles. Eleven articles were selected for inclusion, including 1 cost analysis, 4 cost-minimization analyses, 4 cost-effectiveness analyses, and 2 cost-utility analyses. CHEERS scores ranged from 7 to 21 out of a possible 24 points, with a median score of 17. Current evidence is sparse but suggests that S&FTD can be cost-effective. It appears to be cost-effective when used as a triage mechanism to reduce face-to-face appointment requirements. The cost-effectiveness of S&FTD increases when patients are required to travel farther distances to access dermatology services. Further economic research is required for the emerging S&FTD, which uses dermoscopes in combination with smartphone applications, as well as regarding the possibility and consequences of patients self-capturing and transmitting images.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 20%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 38 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 49 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#561,007
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Dermatology
#403
of 6,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,951
of 353,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Dermatology
#11
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.