Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33959945›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2021

Views on mobile health apps for skin cancer screening in the general population: an in-depth qualitative exploration of perceived barriers and facilitators.

T E Sangers, M Wakkee, E C Kramer-Noels, T Nijsten, M Lugtenberg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Artificial intelligence in skin cancer smartphone applications.Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T E SangersDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0948-5801
M WakkeeDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
E C Kramer-NoelsDutch Society of Dermatology and Venereology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
T NijstenDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9940-2875
M LugtenbergDepartment of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) incorporating artificial intelligence for skin cancer screening are increasingly reimbursed by health insurers. However, an in-depth exploration of the general public's views towards these apps is lacking.

objectivesTo explore the perceived barriers and facilitators towards mHealth apps for skin cancer screening among the Dutch general population.

methodsA qualitative study consisting of four focus groups with 27 participants was conducted. A two-stage purposive sampling method was used to include information-rich participants from the Dutch general population with varying experience of mHealth. A topic guide was used to structure the sessions. All focus group meetings were transcribed verbatim and analysed in thematic content analysis by two researchers using several coding phases, resulting in an overview of themes and subthemes, categorized as (sub-)barriers and (sub)facilitators.

resultsMain barriers to using mHealth apps included a perceived lack of value, perception of untrustworthiness, preference for a doctor, privacy concerns, a complex user interface, and high costs. The main factors facilitating the use of mHealth among the general population were a high perceived value, a transparent and trustworthy identity of app developers, endorsement by healthcare providers and government regulating bodies, and ease and low costs of use.

conclusionsTo increase successful adoption in skin cancer screening apps, developers should create a transparent identity and build trustworthy apps. Collaboration between app developers, general practitioners and dermatologists is advocated to improve mHealth integration with skin cancer care. Special attention should be given to the development of low-cost, privacy-friendly, easy-to-use apps.

Indexed as

General PractitionersMobile ApplicationsSkin NeoplasmsTelemedicineArtificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerHumans

Identifiers

PMID33959945
PMCPMC9291092
OpenAlexW3158415691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.