Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy (2022) 21:23–30 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00765-6
In this article the Methods section of the Abstract was incorrectly given as “Economic 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” but should have been “The environmental impact of patient transport to attend their melanoma clinic over the study period of six months was calculated in carbon dioxide equivalent units using the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors. Societal economic costs were calculated alongside a randomised trial using standard cost analysis methodology from a societal perspective.”
The fourth and sixth paragraphs of the section 2.2 Measuring Environmental Impacts were incorrect and should have been as follows:
“The first step of a life cycle analysis is to decide what processes to include and to define these in the goal and scope of the analysis [1]”.
“All relevant processes and sources of emissions should then be inventoried and quantified using the most appropriate unit of measurement. The final step of life cycle analysis is to determine the total GHG emitted by each process. This is done using carbon emissions factors. These factors often use carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) units, which can account for multiple of the GHG in one figure. For detailed guidance on the principles of process-based life cycle analysis see International Standard ISO 14040 [1]”.
The last two sentences in the second paragraph of the section 2.3 Environmental Impacts Measured in Our Worked Example were missing and should have read “This approach is not a life cycle analysis and only considers tail-pipe emissions from patient transport. Nevertheless, this more limited measurement still demonstrates how environmental impacts may be considered alongside traditional health system and other costs.”
Reference
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, J.T.W., Bell, K.J.L., Morton, R.L. et al. Correction: Exploring the Integration of Environmental Impacts in the Cost Analysis of the Pilot MEL-SELF Trial of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 22, 271–272 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00868-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00868-8