Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31267978›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Patient Attitudes and Their Awareness Towards Skin Cancer-Related Apps: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Theresa Steeb, Anja Wessely, Sebastian Mastnik, Titus Josef Brinker, Lars Einar French, Anne-Charlotte Niesert, Carola Berking, Markus Vincent Heppt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Statutory skin cancer screening in Germany : Motivation and motives for participation versus nonparticipation].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Use of Mobile Applications in Dermatology.Indian journal of dermatology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Theresa SteebDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9008-0088
Anja WesselyDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1940-5115
Sebastian MastnikDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4035-4255
Titus Josef BrinkerDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3620-5919
Lars Einar FrenchDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4629-1486
Anne-Charlotte NiesertDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5684-3240
Carola BerkingDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0229-8931
Markus Vincent HepptDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4603-1825
LMU Klinikum · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the emerging era of digitalization and electronic health, skin cancer-related apps represent useful tools to support dermatologic consultation and examination. Yet, little is known about how patients perceive the value of such apps.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate patient attitudes and their awareness toward skin cancer-related apps.

methodsA cross-sectional study including 200 patients from the oncological outpatient unit was conducted at the University Hospital (LMU Munich, Germany) between September and December 2018. Patients were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire on the popularity and usefulness of health-related and skin cancer-related apps. A descriptive analysis was performed with the expression of categorical variables as frequencies and percentages. For continuous variables, the median and range were indicated. Contingency tables and chi-square tests were performed to investigate associations between sociodemographic data and selected items of the questionnaire.

resultsA total of 98.9% (195/197) of patients had never used skin cancer-related apps or could not remember. In 49.7% (93/187) of cases, patients were unsure about the usefulness of skin cancer apps, whereas 42.6% (78/183) thought that skin cancer apps could supplement or support the professional skin examination performed by a physician. However, 47.9% (90/188) were interested in acquiring more information by their dermatologists about skin cancer apps. Young age (P=.002), male gender (P=.02), a previous history of melanoma (P=.004), and higher educational level (P=.002) were significantly associated with a positive attitude. Nevertheless, 55.9% (105/188) preferred a printed patient brochure on skin cancer to downloading and using an app.

conclusionsThe experience and knowledge of skin cancer-related apps was surprisingly low in this population, although there was a high general interest in more information about such apps. Printed patient brochures were the preferred information source.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsPatientsSkin CareSkin NeoplasmsSurveys and Questionnairesawarenessmelanomamobile applicationspatient educationskin cancertelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID31267978
PMCPMC6632106
OpenAlexW2938260330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.