A literature review was conducted to obtain a high-level view of the value of telemedicine in the management of five common chronic diseases (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension). A total of 141 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was identified, in which 148 telemedicine interventions of various kinds had been tested in a total of 37,695 patients. The value of each intervention was categorised in terms of the outcomes specified by the investigators in that trial, i.e. no attempt was made to extract a common outcome from all studies, as would be required for a conventional meta-analysis. Summarizing the value of these interventions shows, first, that most studies have reported positive effects ( n = 108), and almost none have reported negative effects ( n = 2). This suggests publication bias. Second, there were no significant differences between the chronic diseases, i.e. telemedicine seems equally effective (or ineffective) in the diseases studied. Third, most studies have been relatively short-term (median duration 6 months). It seems unlikely that in a chronic disease, any intervention can have much effect unless applied for a long period. Finally, there have been very few studies of cost-effectiveness. Thus the evidence base for the value of telemedicine in managing chronic diseases is on the whole weak and contradictory.

Today there is much debate about why telemedicine has stalled. Teleradiology is the only widespread telemedicine application. Other telemedicine applications appear to be promising candidates for widespread use, but they remain in the early adoption stage. The objective of this debate paper is to achieve a better understanding of the adoption of telemedicine, to assist those trying to move applications from pilot stage to routine delivery.

Telemedicine is an umbrella term that encompasses any medical activity involving an element of distance. In its commonly understood sense, in which a doctor-patient interaction involves telecommunication, it goes back at least to the use of ship to shore radio for giving medical advice to sea captains. A few years ago the term telemedicine began to be supplanted by the term telehealth, which was thought to be more “politically correct,” but in the past year or so this too has been overtaken by even more fashionable terms such as online health and e-health.

Objectives: Comparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance Design: Randomised controlled trial with a minimum follow up of three months. Setting: Four health centres (two urban, two rural) and two regional hospitals Subjects: 204 general practice patients requiring referral to dermatology services; 102 were randomised to teledermatology consultation and 102 to traditional outpatient consultation. Main outcome measures: Reported clinical outcome of initial consultation, primary care and outpatient reattendance data, and cost-benefit analysis of both methods of delivering care. Results: No major differences were found in the reported clinical outcomes of teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of patients randomised to teledermatology, 55 (54%) were managed within primary care and 47 (46%) required at least one hospital appointment. Of patients randomised to the conventional hospital outpatient consultation, 46 (45%) required at least one further hospital appointment, 15 (15%) required general practice review, and 40 (39%) no follow up visits. Clinical records showed that 42 (41%) patients seen by teledermatology attended subsequent hospital appointments compared with 41 (40%) patients seen conventionally. The net societal cost of the initial consultation was £132.10 per patient for teledermatology and £48.73 for conventional consultation. Sensitivity analysis revealed that if each health centre had allocated one morning session a week to teledermatology and the average round trip to hospital had been 78 km instead of 26 km, the costs of the two methods of care would have been equal. Conclusions: Real time teledermatology was clinically feasible but not cost effective compared with conventional dermatological outpatient care. However, if the equipment were purchased at current prices and the travelling distances greater, teledermatology would be a cost effective alternative to conventional care

Summary Telemedicine has been used for some years in the industrialized world, albeit with rather mixed success. There is also a considerable literature on the potential use of telemedicine for the developing world. However, there are few reports of the actual use of telemedicine there. A review identified five telemedicine networks providing second opinions; each network had been in operation for over five years. Although they have different aims and methods of operation, they exhibit some common features. In particular, none of them appear to be dealing with markedly increasing referral rates. Rough calculations suggest that only about 0.1% of the potential telemedicine demand from the developing world is being met. Possible reasons include the referrers being too busy and a perceived loss of control. If this analysis is correct, then the right strategy for future telemedicine in developing countries will be to concentrate on the construction of within-country networks that demonstrably alter health outcomes, can be shown to be cost-effective and sustainable, and will provide a model for other countries to copy.

A major benefit offered by telemedicine is the avoidance of travel, by patients, their carers and health care professionals. Unfortunately, there is very little published information about the extent of avoided travel. We propose to undertake a systematic review of literature which reports credible data on the reductions in travel associated with the use of telemedicine.