ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
Patient and clinician perspectives on test result communication in dermatology.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41201726What 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.