Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41201726›Full record

ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026

Patient and clinician perspectives on test result communication in dermatology.

Olwyn J Conlon, Nicola Kearney, Angela Alani

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Olwyn J ConlonDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Galway, Newcastle Road, Galway, Ireland. oconlon@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5976-9891
Nicola KearneyDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Galway, Newcastle Road, Galway, Ireland.
Angela AlaniDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Galway, Newcastle Road, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate patient and clinician preferences for communicating dermatology test results (skin biopsies, swabs and blood results) with a focus on differences in preferred methods for normal and abnormal findings.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted involving two anonymised surveys. A structured questionnaire was distributed to 100 consecutive dermatology outpatients attending a dermatology centre over a four-week period from May to June 2025. Concurrently, an electronic survey was distributed nationally to dermatology clinicians, including consultants and registrars (n = 25). Descriptive statistics and chi-square testing were used to analyse differences.

resultsFor abnormal results, both patients (64%) and clinicians (60%) preferred face-to-face appointments, a further 33% of patients favoured mobile contact compared with 20% of clinicians. A statistically significant difference was observed in preferences for normal result communication between patients and clinicians (χ2 = 92.6, p < 0.001) with patients preferring mobile phone contact (53%) and text message (19%) and clinicians overwhelmingly preferring postal letters (72%). 59% reported that their preference would change depending on whether the result was normal or abnormal. Speed of communication was rated "very important" by 73% of patients. Concerns about digital confidentiality were moderate, with mean ratings of 2.33 for text and 2.32 for email on a 5-point scale.

conclusionsPatients favour fast, digital methods for receiving normal results, while clinicians largely continue using traditional postal communication. Greater alignment exists for abnormal result delivery. These findings support a stratified approach to result communication that balances patient preferences, clinical context and confidentiality considerations.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationDermatologyPatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsSkin DiseasesAdultAgedConfidentialityCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesText Messaging

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.