ArticleJAAD international2022
Disparities in access for melanoma screening by region, specialty, and insurance: A cross-sectional audit study.
Article in JAAD international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Skin Cancer Predisposition Genes, Full-Body Skin Examinations, Familial Disclosure, and Genetic Testing Among High-Risk Individuals.International journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- Facilitators and Barriers to the Timely Diagnosis and Treatment of Melanoma in Latino Persons.JAMA dermatology · 2025Article
- Screening and novel diagnostic technologies for melanoma: an update.Melanoma management · 2025Review
- Article
- Diagnostic and treatment concordance in primary care participants and dermatologists utilizing Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO).Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Early detection of melanoma is critical for positive outcomes. However, access for the diagnosis of melanoma remains problematic for segments of the general population. Objective: To compare the rates of dermatology and family medicine practitioner acceptances for a public insurance (Medicaid) versus private insurance (Anthem Blue Cross) and clinic wait times for an appointment for a changing pigmented skin lesion concerning melanoma in rural and urban regions in California. Methods: Cross-sectional audit study between June 2017 and March 2019; scripted phone calls were made to dermatology and family medicine practices (FMPs). Results: Family medicine and dermatology practices in both regions had significantly decreased acceptance of Medicaid. Dermatology practices had 11.3% to 13.0% Medicaid acceptance rates that were less than FMP rates of 28% to 36%. In both regions, FMP wait times were 2.4- to 3.2-fold longer for public versus private insurance; there were little differences in wait times for the 2 insurance types in dermatology practices, in both regions. Limitations: Assessment of only 2 regions in the state of California. Conclusion: Delays at FMPs and insurance types limit access to melanoma screening in California for underserved segments of the general population, which has implications for melanoma outcomes and health policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.