Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36195819›Full record

Trial reportApplied health economics and health policy2023

Exploring the Integration of Environmental Impacts in the Cost Analysis of the Pilot MEL-SELF Trial of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance.

Jake T W Williams, Katy J L Bell, Rachael L Morton, Mbathio Dieng

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Points to consider for incorporating climate impacts into health economic evaluation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jake T W WilliamsFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. jake.williams@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8394-2682
Katy J L BellFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0137-3218
Rachael L MortonNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7834-0572
Mbathio DiengNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6714-9633
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney Research Centres Stipend Scholarship SC1647National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship 1194703National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant 1174523National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 1163054University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsHuman health is intrinsically linked with planetary health. But planetary resources are currently being degraded and this poses an existential threat to human health and the sustainability of our healthcare systems. The aims of this study were to (1) describe an approach to integrate environmental impacts in a cost analysis; and (2) demonstrate this approach by estimating select environmental impacts alongside traditional health system and other costs using the example of the pilot MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial of patient-led melanoma surveillance.

methodsEconomic costs were calculated alongside a randomised trial using standard cost analysis methodology from a societal perspective. Environmental impacts were calculated using a type of carbon footprinting methodology called process-based life cycle analysis. This method considers three scopes of carbon emissions: Scope 1, which occur directly from the intervention; Scope 2, which occur indirectly from the intervention's energy use; and Scope 3, which occur indirectly because of the value chain of the intervention. In this study we only included emissions from patient transport to attend their melanoma clinic over the study period of 6 months.

resultsThe environmental impact per participant across allocated groups for patient transport to their melanoma clinic was estimated to be 10 kg carbon dioxide equivalent. Economic costs across the allocated groups indicated substantial health system costs, out-of-pocket costs, and productivity losses associated with melanoma surveillance. The largest cost contributor was health system costs, and the most expensive category of health system cost was hospital admission.

conclusionCalculating environmental impacts is worthwhile and feasible within a cost analysis framework. Further work is needed to address outstanding conceptual and practical issues so that a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts can be considered alongside economic costs in health technology assessments.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsMelanomaCost-Benefit AnalysisEnvironmentHealth ExpendituresHospitalizationHumans

Identifiers

PMID36195819
PMCPMC9834124
OpenAlexW4301370305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.