Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37632906›Full record

ArticleJMIR dermatology2022

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.

Dorothy Drabarek, Emily Habgood, Deonna Ackermann, Jolyn Hersch, Monika Janda, Rachael L Morton, Pascale Guitera, H Peter Soyer, Helena Collgros, Anne E Cust and 7 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Survivorship care for melanoma patients: a scoping review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dorothy DrabarekSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2893-5863
Emily HabgoodCentre for Cancer Research, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5438-2986
Deonna AckermannSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4089-7823
Jolyn HerschSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5225-6639
Monika JandaCentre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1728-8085
Rachael L MortonNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7834-0572
Pascale GuiteraMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9519-110X
H Peter SoyerFrazer Institute, University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4770-561X
Helena CollgrosSydney Melanoma Diagnostic Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1475-0668
Anne E CustSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5331-6370
Robyn Pm SawMelanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-806X
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-6336
Victoria MarSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7533-1678
Mbathio DiengNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6714-9633
Anthony AzziNewcastle Skin Check, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5263-5046
Alister LilleymanNewcastle Skin Check, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1073-6412
Katy Jl BellSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0137-3218
The University of Sydney · AUThe University of Queensland · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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).

objectiveThis 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.

methodsThis 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."

resultsClinicians 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.

conclusionsClinicians 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 registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001716459; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371865.

Indexed as

carecliniciansdigital technologieshigh-value carelesionmelanomamHealthmobileself-surveillanceskinsurveillancetechnologyteledermatologyteledermoscopy

Identifiers

PMID37632906
PMCPMC10334935
OpenAlexW4312091258

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.