Trial reportJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2025
Understanding patient priorities in teledermatology for psoriasis: A discrete choice experiment.
Trial report in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding patient priorities in teledermatology for psoriasis: A discrete choice experiment.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Trial
- Building the foundations for an international patient-centred outcomes set for psoriasis: A scoping study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDespite supporting guidelines and evidence, teledermatology adoption in Germany is low, also possibly due to a lack of services that reflect patients' preferences. This study investigates these preferences in psoriasis care and the influence of sociodemographic, geographic and disease-related factors.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes included the two teledermatology modes (live-interactive, store-and-forward), treating physician, possibility to ask questions and acknowledgment of concerns. The opportunity to prefer the standard of care was given. Participants were randomly assigned to two scenarios: consultation for acute flare-ups or follow-up. Conditional logit models were used for analysis.
resultsAmong 221 patients with psoriasis (mean age: 58.9 years, 39.8% female), a general preference for the standard of care was observed (acute: β = -0.86, p = 0.001; follow-up: β = -1.24, p = 0.001). Factors that positively influenced preference for teledermatology were medical care provided by the known physician (acute: β = 0.49, p < 0.001; follow-up: β = 0.51, p < 0.001), the possibility to ask questions (acute: β = 0.35, p < 0.001; follow-up: β = 0.52, p < 0.001) and a very good acknowledgment of patients' concerns (acute: β = 0.48, p < 0.001; follow-up: β = 0.50, p < 0.001). Immediate feedback (<24 h) was crucial in acute consultations (β = 0.51, p < 0.001). No preference for a teledermatology mode was noted in either scenario. In both scenarios, lower privacy concerns and higher technology acceptance positively influenced teledermatology preference. In acute care, current long waiting times, whereas in follow-up care, current regular blood sampling positively influenced the preference for teledermatology.
conclusionsPatients with psoriasis generally preferred standard-of-care over teledermatology. However, certain attributes positively influenced their preference for teledermatology, including consultations with their known treating physician, acknowledgment of patient concerns and prompt consultation during acute flare-ups. Adapting services to these preferences could increase the use of teledermatology.
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.