Acceptance of Teledermoscopy by General Practitioners and Dermatologists in Denmark

Tine Vestergaard; Merethe K. Andersen; Anette Bygum

doi:10.5826/dpc.1102a33

Acceptance of Teledermoscopy by General Practitioners and Dermatologists in Denmark

Authors

Tine Vestergaard Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre & Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Merethe K. Andersen Audit Project Odense, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Anette Bygum Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Keywords:

provider satisfaction, teledermoscopy, teledermatology, skin cancer, malignant melanoma, general practitioner

Abstract

Background: Teledermoscopy can be used to triage referrals of suspected skin cancers, thereby reducing waiting time and number of face-to-face consultations with a dermatologist. However, the success of the implementation of this technology in part relies on the acceptance of the providers.

Objectives: This study assessed the attitudes towards teledermoscopy of referring general practitioners and consultant dermatologists.

Methods: General practitioners from 48 practices and 3 dermatologists in the region of Southern Denmark, who had previous experience with teledermoscopy, were invited to answer questionnaires on their acceptance of the technology.

Results: General practitioners from 23 practices responded. All domains of the questionnaire received high scores, indicating a high degree of acceptance of teledermoscopy among respondents. All 3 dermatologists agreed that teledermoscopy was useful for triaging referrals, but they were less confident in their diagnoses and management plans proposed by teledermoscopy than in traditional face-to-face evaluations of patients. Two of the 3 dermatologists were satisfied with using teledermoscopy as a consult method.

Conclusions: This study reports high levels of provider acceptance of teledermoscopy. However, a low response rate among general practitioners may limit its generalizability.

References

Gordon LG, Rowell D. Health system costs of skin cancer and cost-effectiveness of skin cancer prevention and screening: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24(2):141-149. DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000056. PMID: 25089375.

Noels E, Hollestein L, Luijkx K, et al. Increasing Costs of Skin Cancer due to Increasing Incidence and Introduction of Pharmaceuticals, 2007-2017. Acta Derm Venereol. 2020;100(10):adv00147. DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3463. PMID: 32189004.

Westerhoff K, McCarthy WH, Menzies SW. Increase in the sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis by primary care physicians using skin surface microscopy. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143(5):1016-1020. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2000.03836.x. PMID: 11069512.

Lee KJ, Finnane A, Soyer HP. Recent trends in teledermatology and teledermoscopy. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2018;8(3):214-223. DOI: 10.5826/dpc.0803a013. PMID: 30116667.

Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy. Lancet Oncol. 2002;3(3):159-165. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(02)00679-4.

Dahlen Gyllencreutz J, Paoli J, Bjellerup M, et al. Diagnostic agreement and interobserver concordance with teledermoscopy referrals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(5):898-903. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.14147. PMID: 28150389.

Vestergaard T, Prasad SC, Schuster A, Laurinaviciene R, Andersen MK, Bygum A. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver concordance: teledermoscopy of 600 suspicious skin lesions in Southern Denmark. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(7):1601-1608. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.16275. PMID: 32031277.

Schwamm LH. Telehealth: seven strategies to successfully implement disruptive technology and transform health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(2):200-206. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1021. PMID: 24493761.

Al-Qirim NA. Teledermatology: the case of adoption and diffusion of telemedicine health Waikato in New Zealand. Telemed J E Health. 2003;9(2):167-177. DOI: 10.1089/153056203766437507. PMID: 12855039.

Gilling S, Mortz CG, Vestergaard T. Patient satisfaction and expectations regarding mobile teledermoscopy in general practice for diagnosis of non-melanoma skin cancer and malignant melanoma. Acta Derm Venereol. 2020;100(8):adv00117. DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3459. PMID: 32179927.

FotoFinder. https://www.fotofinder.de/en/technology/skin-cancer-diagnostics/handyscope/fotofinder-hub/ . Accessed August 21, 2020.

Munck AP, Damsgaard JJ, Hansen DG, Bjerrum L, Sondergaard J. [The APO method--a popular form of quality development in general practice]. Ugeskrift for laeger. 2002;164(46):5390-5393.

Orruno E, Gagnon MP, Asua J, Ben Abdeljelil A. Evaluation of teledermatology adoption by health-care professionals using a modified Technology Acceptance Model. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(6):303-307. DOI: 10.1258/jtt.2011.101101. PMID: 21844171.

Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208. PMID: 31078660.

Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. PMID: 18929686.

Whited JD, Hall RP, Foy ME, et al. Patient and clinician satisfaction with a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10(4):422-431. DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2004.10.422 PMID: 15689645.

Stratton D, Loescher LJ. The acceptance of mobile teledermoscopy by primary care nurse practitioners in the state of Arizona. J Am Assoc Nurse Practitioners. 2016;28(6):287-293.

Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319-340.

Tognetti L, Cevenini G, Moscarella E, et al. An integrated clinical-dermoscopic risk scoring system for the differentiation between early melanoma and atypical nevi: the iDScore. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV. 2018;32(12):2162-2170. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15106. PMID: 29888421.

Tognetti L, Cevenini G, Moscarella E, et al. Validation of an integrated dermoscopic scoring method in an European teledermoscopy web platform: the iDScore project for early detection of melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(3):640-647. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15923. PMID: 31465600.

Mounessa JS, Chapman S, Braunberger T, et al. A systematic review of satisfaction with teledermatology. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(4):263-270. DOI: 10.1177/1357633X17696587. PMID: 28350281.

Kenney AS, Yiannias JA, Raghu TS, David PS, Chang YH, Greig HE. Measures of satisfaction for providers and patients using same day teledermoscopy consultation. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55(7):781-785. DOI: 10.1111/ijd.12892. PMID: 26276548.

Janda M, Horsham C, Koh U, et al. Evaluating healthcare practitioners' views on store-and-forward teledermoscopy services for the diagnosis of skin cancer. Digit Health. 2019;5:2055207619828225. DOI: 10.1177/2055207619828225. PMID: 30792879.

Chappuis P, Duru G, Marchal O, Girier P, Dalle S, Thomas L. Dermoscopy, a useful tool for general practitioners in melanoma screening: a nationwide survey. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(4):744-750. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.14495. PMID: 26914613.

Jones OT, Jurascheck LC, Utukuri M, Pannebakker MM, Emery J, Walter FM. Dermoscopy use in UK primary care: a survey of GPs with a special interest in dermatology. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol.. 2019;33(9):1706-1712. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15614.

Lim D, Oakley AM, Rademaker M. Better, sooner, more convenient: a successful teledermoscopy service. Australas J Dermatol. 2012;53(1):22-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-0960.2011.00836.x. PMID: 22309326.