Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39226097›Full record

ArticleJMIR dermatology2024

Exploring Acceptability, Barriers, and Facilitators for Digital Health in Dermatology: Qualitative Focus Groups With Dermatologists, Nurses, and Patients.

Patrick Reinders, Matthias Augustin, Anastasia Fleyder, Marina Otten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Understanding patient priorities in teledermatology for psoriasis: A discrete choice experiment.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025
    Trial
  2. Digital health applications, telemedicine and large language models in dermatology: results of a Germany-wide survey.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  3. Attitudes of dermatological patients towards digital health interventions: a cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  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

4 authors.

Patrick ReindersInstitute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2961-2698
Matthias AugustinInstitute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4026-8728
Anastasia FleyderInstitute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8423-8862
Marina OttenInstitute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3767-1548

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough several digital health interventions (DHIs) have shown promise in the care of skin diseases their uptake in Germany has been limited. To fully understand the reasons for the low uptake, an in-depth analysis of patients' and health care providers' barriers and facilitators in dermatology is needed.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to explore and compare attitudes, acceptability, barriers, and facilitators of patients, dermatologists, and nurses toward DHIs in dermatology.

methodsWe conducted 6 web-based focus groups each with patients (n=34), dermatologists (n=30), and nurses (n=30) using a semistructured interview guide with short descriptions of DHIs described in the literature. A content analysis was performed using deductive constructs, following the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology framework, and inductive categories.

resultsPatients identified many positive performance expectancies, such as reduced travel times and improvement in follow-up appointments. Dermatologists also stated positive effects (eg, promotion of standardized care), but also negative implications of health care digitalization (eg, increased workload). All stakeholders reported that a DHI should bring additional value to all stakeholders. A lack of digital competence among patients was identified as the major barrier to adoption by all 3 groups. Nurses and dermatologists want apps that are easy to use and easy to implement into their daily routines. Trust in selected institutions, colleagues, and physicians was identified as a facilitator. Patients reported their dependence on the dermatologists' acceptance. All groups expressed concerns about data privacy risks and dermatologists stated insecurities toward data privacy laws.

conclusionsTo ensure successful digitalization in dermatology, apps should be user-friendly, adapted to users' skill levels, and beneficial for all stakeholders. The incorporation of dermatologists' perspectives is especially important as their acceptance may impact use among patients and nurses. DHIs should ensure and be transparent about data privacy. The found barriers and facilitators can be used for implementation strategies.

Indexed as

DermatologistsDermatologyFocus GroupsNursesAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelDigital HealthFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative ResearchSkin Diseasesbarriers and facilitatorsdermatologydigital health interventionsdigitalizationfocus groupsmobile phonequalitative researchunified theory of acceptance and use of technologyUTAUT

Identifiers

PMID39226097
PMCPMC11408893

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.