Perspectives and Experiences of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance Using Digital Technologies From Clinicians Involved in the MEL-SELF Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial: Qualitative Interview Study.
care
clinicians
digital technologies
high-value care
lesion
mHealth
melanoma
mobile
self-surveillance
skin
surveillance
technology
teledermatology
teledermoscopy
Journal
JMIR dermatology
ISSN: 2562-0959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Dermatol
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101770607
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Dec 2022
20 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
30
06
2022
accepted:
19
11
2022
revised:
24
10
2022
medline:
27
8
2023
pubmed:
27
8
2023
entrez:
26
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The growing number of melanoma patients who need long-term surveillance increasingly exceeds the capacity of the dermatology workforce, particularly outside of metropolitan areas. Digital technologies that enable patients to perform skin self-examination and send dermoscopic images of lesions of concern to a dermatologist (mobile teledermoscopy) are a potential solution. If these technologies and the remote delivery of melanoma surveillance are to be incorporated into routine clinical practice, they need to be accepted by clinicians providing melanoma care, such as dermatologists and general practitioners (GPs). This study aimed to explore perceptions of potential benefits and harms of mobile teledermoscopy, as well as experiences with this technology, among clinicians participating in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient-led melanoma surveillance. This qualitative study was nested within a pilot RCT conducted at dermatologist and skin specialist GP-led melanoma clinics in New South Wales, Australia. We conducted semistructured interviews with 8 of the total 11 clinicians who were involved in the trial, including 4 dermatologists (3 provided teledermatology, 2 were treating clinicians), 1 surgical oncologist, and 3 GPs with qualifications in skin cancer screening (the remaining 3 GPs declined an interview). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data with reference to the concepts of "medical overuse" and "high-value care." Clinicians identified several potential benefits, including increased access to dermatology services, earlier detection of melanomas, reassurance for patients between scheduled visits, and a reduction in unnecessary clinic visits. However, they also identified some potential concerns regarding the use of the technology and remote monitoring that could result in diagnostic uncertainty. These included poor image quality, difficulty making assessments from a 2D digital image (even if good quality), insufficient clinical history provided, and concern that suspicious lesions may have been missed by the patient. Clinicians thought that uncertainty arising from these concerns, together with perceived potential medicolegal consequences from missing a diagnosis, might lead to increases in unnecessary clinic visits and procedures. Strategies suggested for achieving high-value care included managing clinical uncertainty to decrease the potential for medical overuse and ensuring optimal placement of patient-led teledermoscopy within existing clinical care pathways to increase the potential for benefits. Clinicians were enthusiastic about the potential and experienced benefits of mobile teledermoscopy; however, managing clinical uncertainty will be necessary to achieve these benefits in clinical care outside of trial contexts and minimize potential harms from medical overuse. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The growing number of melanoma patients who need long-term surveillance increasingly exceeds the capacity of the dermatology workforce, particularly outside of metropolitan areas. Digital technologies that enable patients to perform skin self-examination and send dermoscopic images of lesions of concern to a dermatologist (mobile teledermoscopy) are a potential solution. If these technologies and the remote delivery of melanoma surveillance are to be incorporated into routine clinical practice, they need to be accepted by clinicians providing melanoma care, such as dermatologists and general practitioners (GPs).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore perceptions of potential benefits and harms of mobile teledermoscopy, as well as experiences with this technology, among clinicians participating in a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient-led melanoma surveillance.
METHODS
METHODS
This qualitative study was nested within a pilot RCT conducted at dermatologist and skin specialist GP-led melanoma clinics in New South Wales, Australia. We conducted semistructured interviews with 8 of the total 11 clinicians who were involved in the trial, including 4 dermatologists (3 provided teledermatology, 2 were treating clinicians), 1 surgical oncologist, and 3 GPs with qualifications in skin cancer screening (the remaining 3 GPs declined an interview). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data with reference to the concepts of "medical overuse" and "high-value care."
RESULTS
RESULTS
Clinicians identified several potential benefits, including increased access to dermatology services, earlier detection of melanomas, reassurance for patients between scheduled visits, and a reduction in unnecessary clinic visits. However, they also identified some potential concerns regarding the use of the technology and remote monitoring that could result in diagnostic uncertainty. These included poor image quality, difficulty making assessments from a 2D digital image (even if good quality), insufficient clinical history provided, and concern that suspicious lesions may have been missed by the patient. Clinicians thought that uncertainty arising from these concerns, together with perceived potential medicolegal consequences from missing a diagnosis, might lead to increases in unnecessary clinic visits and procedures. Strategies suggested for achieving high-value care included managing clinical uncertainty to decrease the potential for medical overuse and ensuring optimal placement of patient-led teledermoscopy within existing clinical care pathways to increase the potential for benefits.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians were enthusiastic about the potential and experienced benefits of mobile teledermoscopy; however, managing clinical uncertainty will be necessary to achieve these benefits in clinical care outside of trial contexts and minimize potential harms from medical overuse.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37632906
pii: v5i4e40623
doi: 10.2196/40623
pmc: PMC10334935
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e40623Informations de copyright
©Dorothy Drabarek, Emily Habgood, Deonna Ackermann, Jolyn Hersch, Monika Janda, Rachael L Morton, Pascale Guitera, H Peter Soyer, Helena Collgros, Anne E Cust, Robyn PM Saw, Jon Emery, Victoria Mar, Mbathio Dieng, Anthony Azzi, Alister Lilleyman, Katy JL Bell. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org), 20.12.2022.
Références
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 May;151(5):489-96
pubmed: 25629626
Fam Pract. 2018 Sep 18;35(5):526-527
pubmed: 29659794
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Mar;2(3):e129-e137
pubmed: 33334577
JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Dec 1;155(12):1410-1415
pubmed: 31642872
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 6;8(7):e18072
pubmed: 32442132
Arch Dermatol. 2008 Nov;144(11):1468-76
pubmed: 19015421
Digit Health. 2019 Feb 06;5:2055207619828225
pubmed: 30792879
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Feb 20;8(2):e15935
pubmed: 32130167
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):169-177
pubmed: 28077232
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 19;12:468
pubmed: 23253951
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Oct;183(4):752-753
pubmed: 32471016
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
JAMA Dermatol. 2022 Jan 01;158(1):33-42
pubmed: 34817543
Trials. 2021 May 4;22(1):324
pubmed: 33947444
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):178-190
pubmed: 28077235
Curr Dermatol Rep. 2021;10(3):55-66
pubmed: 34341713
Radiology. 2015 Apr;275(1):9-12
pubmed: 25799332
Br J Dermatol. 2015 Apr;172(4):1072-80
pubmed: 25418126
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Nov 4;20(1):1011
pubmed: 33148242
Telemed J E Health. 2016 Aug;22(8):689-93
pubmed: 26960113
Int J Womens Dermatol. 2017 May 20;3(3):176-179
pubmed: 28831431
JAAD Int. 2021 Jan 04;2:98-108
pubmed: 34409358
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 May;151(5):483-4
pubmed: 25629217
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008 May;34(5):587-92
pubmed: 17681449
Med J Aust. 2016 Mar 21;204(5):198-200e1
pubmed: 26985853
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Jul;177(1):134-140
pubmed: 28369739
Int J Dermatol. 2021 Mar;60(3):289-308
pubmed: 32880938
J Telemed Telecare. 2017 Jan;23(1):19-25
pubmed: 26729755
Qual Health Res. 2014 May;24(5):682-94
pubmed: 24685708
JAMA Dermatol. 2022 May 1;158(5):495-503
pubmed: 35353115
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):156-168
pubmed: 28077234
Telemed J E Health. 2019 Nov;25(11):1022-1032
pubmed: 30741608
JAMA Dermatol. 2021 Jul 1;157(7):870-871
pubmed: 34009267
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023 Jan;21(1):23-30
pubmed: 36195819
Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021 Mar 08;11(2):e2021069
pubmed: 33747633
Int J Womens Dermatol. 2016 Aug 09;2(3):70-73
pubmed: 28492013
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 01;19(11):e367
pubmed: 29092808
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):191-202
pubmed: 28077228