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.”