Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review.
Journal
American journal of clinical dermatology
ISSN: 1179-1888
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Dermatol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 100895290
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
accepted:
27
02
2022
pubmed:
30
3
2022
medline:
1
6
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public, patients, and carers, on both an individual and a group level, rather than simply 'about', or 'for' them. Within dermatology, PPI is increasingly recognised as a vital component of research as it helps to ensure that research remains relevant to the populations we intend to serve. Dermatology scholarship, with its rich psychosocial implications due to the stigma, physical disability, and mental health burdens these conditions may incur, is in a unique position to benefit from PPI to unlock previously inaccessible patient lived experiences or therapeutic consequences. Throughout the rapid growth of PPI, it has been infused throughout the research lifecycle, from design to dissemination and beyond. After first explaining the principles of PPI, we examine the existing evidence base at each research stage to explore whether our specialty has effectively harnessed this approach and to identify any subsequent impact of PPI. Finally, we scrutinise the challenges faced by those implementing PPI in dermatology research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35349092
doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00680-5
pii: 10.1007/s40257-022-00680-5
pmc: PMC8962283
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
319-329Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
National Institute for Health Research. Public involvement in systematic reviews: supplement to the briefing notes for researchers. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/INVOLVEPublicInvolvementSystematicReviews_updated-July-2014_WEB.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation—the RAPPORT study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Sep. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.38.). Chapter 2, Background https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK316007/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, Forrester J, Lamont T. Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. BMJ. 1998;316(7129):463–6.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7129.463
pubmed: 9492683
pmcid: 2665609
Borup G, Bach KF, Schmiegelow M, Wallach-Kildemoes H, Bjerrum OJ, Westergaard N. A paradigm shift towards patient involvement in medicines development and regulatory science: workshop proceedings and commentary. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(3):304–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015622668 .
doi: 10.1177/2168479015622668
pubmed: 30227074
Freeman EE, Chamberlin GC, McMahon DE, et al. Dermatology COVID-19 registries: updates and future directions. Dermatol Clin. 2021;39(4):575–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.det.2021.05.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.det.2021.05.013
pubmed: 34556247
pmcid: 8165090
Dalgard FJ, Gieler U, Tomas-Aragones L, et al. The psychological burden of skin diseases: a cross-sectional multicenter study among dermatological out-patients in 13 European countries. J Investig Dermatol. 2015;135(4):984–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2014.530 .
doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.530
pubmed: 25521458
Ward PR, Thompson J, Barber R, et al. Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap. J Sociol. 2010;46(1):63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783309351771 .
doi: 10.1177/1440783309351771
Edelman N, Barron D. Evaluation of public involvement in research: time for a major re-think? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2016;21(3):209–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819615612510 .
doi: 10.1177/1355819615612510
pubmed: 26510440
Madden M, Speed E. Beware zombies and unicorns: toward critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Front Sociol. 2017;2:7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007 .
doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007
Shimmin C, Wittmeier KDM, Lavoie JG, Wicklund ED, Sibley KM. Moving towards a more inclusive patient and public involvement in health research paradigm: the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):539. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2463-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2463-1
pubmed: 28784138
pmcid: 5547533
Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2019;22(4):785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12888
Lester JC, Taylor SC, Chren MM. Under-representation of skin of colour in dermatology images: not just an educational issue. Br J Dermatol. 2019;180(6):1521–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17608 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.17608
pubmed: 31157429
Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. “Talking the talk or walking the walk?” A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2015;18(1):44–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12007 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12007
Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2019;22(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12841 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12841
Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4
pubmed: 29415734
pmcid: 5804082
National Institute for Health Research. Public involvement in research: values and principles framework. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Values-Principles-framework-Jan2016.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Published online 2011:7. https://www.pcori.org/assets/Summary-Report-Synthesizing-PCOR-Definition-Input1.pdf .
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). Patient engagement framework. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/spor_framework-en.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Thompson J, Bissell P, Cooper CL, Armitage CJ, Barber R. Exploring the impact of patient and public involvement in a cancer research setting. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(1):46–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313514482 .
doi: 10.1177/1049732313514482
pubmed: 24277776
pmcid: 4509885
Minogue V, Cooke M, Donskoy AL, Vicary P, Wells B. Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0087-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0087-1
pubmed: 29449962
pmcid: 5808395
Skilton E, Aslam M, Yeung J, Gao F, Melody T. Embedding patient and public involvement within research—how to set up a research patient ambassador group within a NHS trust. J Intensive Care Soc. 2016;17(3):234–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1751143716644459 .
doi: 10.1177/1751143716644459
pubmed: 28979496
pmcid: 5606526
Briefing notes for researchers - public involvement in NHS, health and social care research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371#Briefing_note_seven:_approaches_to_public_involvement_in_research . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
National Institute for Health Research. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research. https://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/RDS_PPI-Handbook_2014-v8-FINAL-11.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021
Eleftheriadou V, Whitton ME, Gawkrodger DJ, et al. Future research into the treatment of vitiligo: where should our priorities lie? Results of the vitiligo priority setting partnership. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(3):530–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10160.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10160.x
pubmed: 21128908
pmcid: 3084501
Thomas KS, Batchelor JM, Akram P, et al. Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial. Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(5):828–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19592 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.19592
pubmed: 33006767
Layton A, Eady EA, Peat M, et al. Identifying acne treatment uncertainties via a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7): e008085. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008085 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008085
pubmed: 26187120
pmcid: 4513497
Schmitt J, Spuls P, Boers M, et al. Towards global consensus on outcome measures for atopic eczema research: results of the HOME II meeting. Allergy. 2012;67(9):1111–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2012.02874.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2012.02874.x
pubmed: 22844983
Kottner J, Schmitt J. Core outcome sets in dermatology: next steps. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(3):549–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16812 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.16812
pubmed: 30222889
Thiboutot DM, Layton AM, Chren MM, Eady EA, Tan J. Assessing effectiveness in acne clinical trials: steps towards a core outcome measure set. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181(4):700–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18011 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.18011
pubmed: 31002382
Tan J, Frey MP, Thiboutot D, Layton A, Eady A. Identifying the impacts of acne: a Delphi survey of patients and clinicians. J Cutan Med Surg. 2020;24(3):259–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1203475420907088 .
doi: 10.1177/1203475420907088
pubmed: 32096429
van Zuuren EJ, Arents BWM, Miklas M, Schoones JW, Tan J. Identifying and appraising patient-reported outcome measures on treatment satisfaction in acne: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2021;185(1):36–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19675 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.19675
pubmed: 33176002
Thomas KS, Batchelor JM, Bath-Hextall F, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum work programme. NIHR Journals Library; 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK401858/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Dalgard FJ, Bewley A, Evers AW, et al. Stigmatisation and body image impairment in dermatological patients: protocol for an observational multicentre study in 16 European countries. BMJ Open. 2018;8(12): e024877. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024877 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024877
pubmed: 30580274
pmcid: 6307615
Going the extra mile: Improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. The final report and recommendations to the Director General Research and Development/Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Department of Health of the ‘Breaking Boundaries’ strategic review of public involvement in the National Institute for Health Research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/about-us/our-contribution-to-research/how-we-involve-patients-carers-and-the-public/Going-the-Extra-Mile.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
National Institute for Health Research. Join a funding committee. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/patients-carers-and-the-public/i-want-to-help-with-research/join-a-funding-committee.htm . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358: j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453
pubmed: 28768629
pmcid: 5539518
Psoriasis association. New research grants awarded. https://www.psoriasis-association.org.uk/news/new-research-grants-awarded . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
National Eczema Association. Research grants and awards. https://nationaleczema.org/research/research-we-fund/for-researchers/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Melanoma Research Foundation. Learn about grant reviews. https://melanoma.org/research-science/participate-in-science/learn-about-grant-reviews/ Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
National Institute for Health Research. Learn about the small grants scheme. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/health-and-care-professionals/engagement-and-participation-in-research/learn-about-the-small-grants-scheme.htm Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Weller K, Adriane Groffik, Church MK, et al. Development and validation of the Urticaria Control Test: a patient-reported outcome instrument for assessing urticaria control. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133(5):1365–1372.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2013.12.1076
Howells LM, Chalmers JR, Cowdell F, Ratib S, Santer M, Thomas KS. ‘When it goes back to my normal I suppose’: a qualitative study using online focus groups to explore perceptions of ‘control’ among people with eczema and parents of children with eczema in the UK. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11): e017731. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017731 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017731
pubmed: 29146642
pmcid: 5695402
Howells LM, Chalmers JR, Gran S, et al. Development and initial testing of a new instrument to measure the experience of eczema control in adults and children: recap of atopic eczema (RECAP). Br J Dermatol. 2020;183(3):524–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18780 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.18780
pubmed: 31794074
pmcid: 7496132
Burden-Teh E, Murphy R, Gran S, Nijsten T, Hughes C, Thomas KS. Protocol for a case–control diagnostic accuracy study to develop diagnostic criteria for psoriasis in children (DIPSOC study): a multicentre study recruiting in UK paediatric dermatology clinics. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8): e028689. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028689 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028689
pubmed: 31462472
pmcid: 6720549
Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383(9912):176–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7
Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363: k4738. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4738 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4738
pubmed: 30487232
pmcid: 6259046
Psoriasis Association. Recruitment support. https://www.psoriasis-association.org.uk/supporting-researchers/recruitment/support . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Thomas KS, Bradshaw LE, Sach TH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of silk therapeutic garments for the management of atopic eczema in children: the CLOTHES trial. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017 Apr. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 21.16.) Chapter 6, Involvement of patients and the public. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425589/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Jennings H, Slade M, Bates P, Munday E, Toney R. Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):213. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8
Sweeney A, Greenwood KE, Williams S, Wykes T, Rose DS. Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: the case for multiple coding. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2013;16(4):e89-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00810.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00810.x
Garfield S, Jheeta S, Husson F, et al. Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0041-z .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0041-z
pubmed: 29507764
pmcid: 5831865
Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K, Goodrich-Purnell N, Lovell K, Chambers M. ‘What difference does it make?’ Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients. Health Expect. 2010;13(2):185–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00596.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00596.x
pubmed: 20536538
pmcid: 5060533
Dermatologically Tested. AI in dermatology with Dr Rubeta Matin. Google Podcasts. 2021. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2Rlcm1hdG9sb2dpY2FsbHl0ZXN0ZWQvZmVlZC54bWw/episode/ZGVybWF0b2xvZ2ljYWxseXRlc3RlZC5wb2RiZWFuLmNvbS9mMjBkOWI0ZC1kMGYwLTMwMzktYTAyYi0xZDA4N2ZlODNlN2Q . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Cohen DK, Nardone B, Cotton M, West DP, Kundu RV. Use of a Mobile Application to Characterize a Remote and Global Population of Acne Patients and to Disseminate Peer-Reviewed Acne-Related Health Education. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(6):660–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.9524 .
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.9524
pubmed: 24622651
Dunnsiri T, Kawashita T, Lee SC, Monga AK, Woo BKP. Assessing YouTube as an educational tool for shingles: cross-sectional study. JMIR Dermatol. 2020;3(1): e20338. https://doi.org/10.2196/20338 .
doi: 10.2196/20338
Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology (CEBD). Patient panel newsletter. 2021. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/cebd/documents/patientscarers/cebd-patient-panel-newsletter-14.pdf . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Iglesias-Puzas Á, Conde-Taboada A, Aranegui-Arteaga B, López-Bran E. “Fake news” in dermatology. Results from an observational, cross-sectional study. Int J Dermatol. 2021;60(3):358–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.15254 .
doi: 10.1111/ijd.15254
pubmed: 33095467
Kim WB, Marinas JEC, Vender RB. Public engagement with dermatology contents on Facebook. J Cutan Med Surg. 2015;19(3):304–8. https://doi.org/10.2310/7750.2014.14119 .
doi: 10.2310/7750.2014.14119
pubmed: 25775650
Daneshjou R, Adamson AS. Twitter Journal Clubs: medical education in the era of social media. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(7):729–30. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0315 .
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0315
pubmed: 32186655
Baxter S, Muir D, Brereton L, et al. Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0027-x .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0027-x
pubmed: 29062514
pmcid: 5611568
Shippee ND, Garces JPD, Lopez GJP, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2015;18(5):1151–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12090 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12090
Turk A, Boylan A-M, Locock L. A researcher’s guide to patient and public involvement: 30. University of Oxford. https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A-Researchers-Guide-to-PPI.pdf .
British Journal of Dermatology. Editorial team. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652133/homepage/editorialboard.html . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Vereniging voor Mensen met Constitutioneel Eczeem (VMCE). https://www.vmce.nl/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2021.
Ford KL, Albritton T, Dunn TA, Crawford K, Neuwirth J, Bull S. Youth Study recruitment using paid advertising on Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook: cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019;5(4): e14080. https://doi.org/10.2196/14080 .
doi: 10.2196/14080
pubmed: 31599739
pmcid: 6811770
Lenzer J, Hoffman JR, Furberg CD, Ioannidis JPA. Ensuring the integrity of clinical practice guidelines: a tool for protecting patients. BMJ. 2013;347: f5535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5535 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5535
pubmed: 24046286
Eady EA, Layton AM, Sprakel J, Arents BWM, Fedorowicz Z, van Zuuren EJ AGREE II assessments of recent acne treatment guidelines: how well do they reveal trustworthiness as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine criteria? Br J Dermatol. 2017;177(6):1716-1725. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15777
Haw WY, Al-Janabi A, Arents BWM, et al. Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP): a scoping review of dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Br J Dermatol. 2021;185(4):736–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20428 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.20428
pubmed: 33937976
The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Published online January 2006:76. US Department of Education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260081983_The_Health_Literacy_of_America's_Adults_Results_From_the_2003_National_Assessment_of_Adult_Literacy_NCES_2006-483 .
Carman KL, Workman TA. Engaging patients and consumers in research evidence: applying the conceptual model of patient and family engagement. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(1):25–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.009
pubmed: 27473639
Ahmed A, Layfield C. Amina Ahmed and Carron Layfield: Patient partnership in an academic research unit. The BMJ Opinion. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/07/05/amina-ahmed-and-carron-layfield-patient-partnership-in-an-academic-research-unit/ . Accessed 28 Oct 2021.
Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation—the RAPPORT study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Sep. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.38.) Chapter 6, findings from the case studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK315993/ . Accessed 11 Feb 2022.
Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(9):537–46. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x
pubmed: 10491242
pmcid: 1496744
Charrow A, Xia FD, Joyce C, Mostaghimi A. Diversity in dermatology clinical trials: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(2):193–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4129 .
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4129
pubmed: 28055072
Akhiyat S, Cardwell L, Sokumbi O. Why dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine: how did we get here? Clin Dermatol. 2020;38(3):310–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.02.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.02.005
pubmed: 32563342
Miah J, Parsons S, Lovell K, Starling B, Leroi I, Dawes P. Impact of involving people with dementia and their care partners in research: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10): e039321. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039321 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039321
pubmed: 33109666
pmcid: 7592301
Quinlivan LM, Gorman L, Littlewood DL, et al. ‘Relieved to be seen’—patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessment in the emergency department following self-harm: qualitative analysis of 102 free-text survey responses. BMJ Open. 2021;11(5): e044434. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044434 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044434
pubmed: 34024759
pmcid: 8149433
Cowdell F, Ahmed T, Layfield C. Knowledge mobilisation: a UK co-creation study to devise strategies to amend lay and practitioner atopic eczema mindlines to improve consultation experiences and self-management practices in primary care. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9): e036520. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036520 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036520
pubmed: 32988943
pmcid: 7523205
Amir M, Sampson BP, Endly D, et al. Social networking sites: emerging and essential tools for communication in dermatology. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(1):56–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.6340 .
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.6340
pubmed: 24196212
Guckian J, Cotter C, Charalambides M, Kibbi N. Navigating social media: the BJD experience. Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(4):585–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19754 .
doi: 10.1111/bjd.19754
pubmed: 33835486
Zheng DX, Mulligan KM, Scott JF. TikTok and dermatology: an opportunity for public health engagement. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):e25–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.050 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.050
pubmed: 33639245
Qi J, Trang T, Doong J, Kang S, Chien AL. Misinformation is prevalent in psoriasis-related YouTube videos. Dermatol Online J. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5070/D32211033142 .
doi: 10.5070/D32211033142
pubmed: 28329562
Sager MA, Kashyap AM, Tamminga M, Ravoori S, Callison-Burch C, Lipoff JB. Identifying and responding to health misinformation on reddit dermatology forums with artificially intelligent bots using natural language processing: design and evaluation study. JMIR Dermatol. 2021;4(2): e20975. https://doi.org/10.2196/20975 .
doi: 10.2196/20975