was SAF used to at teledermatology: The benefit compare primary care €12.6 measure was centre, Conventional: specific to the evaluation of €27.5 intervention with the considered in by the study. care Statistically However, it is significant inverse not FTF visit at relationship local between average enough to unit cost of reflect all the FTF visit teleconsultation benefits at skin and the number related to cancer clinic, of those two travel to skin teleconsultations interventions. cancer clinic (p < 0.001). by patient, working Validity of time lost by Average waiting estimate of patient. interval (days) costs SAF The authors cost stated over the explicitly the intranet perspective considered that was negligible adopted in the and not study. included in Detailed ICER the cost information
was used to compare with the care at primary care centre, evaluation of by FTF visit at local FTF visit at skin cancer clinic, travel to skin cancer clinic by patient, working time lost by patient. cost over the intranet considered negligible and not included in the cost SAF teledermatology: €12.6 Conventional: €27.5 Statistically significant inverse relationship between average unit cost of teleconsultation and the number of teleconsultations (p < 0.001). Average waiting interval (days) SAF ICER The benefit measure was specific to the intervention considered in the study. However, it is not enough to reflect all the benefits related to those two interventions. Validity of estimate of costs The authors stated explicitly the perspective that was adopted in the study. Detailed information
1360%20-%20FinalAssessmentReport%20-accessible.docx