ArticleDermatology and therapy2026
Understanding Clinical Inertia in Atopic Dermatitis: A Mixed-Methods Study of Barriers to Treatment Escalation.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough effective therapies are available for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), many eligible patients do not receive timely treatment escalation. This phenomenon, termed clinical inertia, is well described in chronic internal diseases but underexplored in dermatology. We aimed to quantify clinical inertia in AD and to identify patient-, physician-, and system-level barriers to treatment escalation.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional mixed-methods study at a tertiary dermatology center between November 2024 and March 2025. Forty adults with moderate-to-severe AD completed validated questionnaires on disease severity (POEM), quality of life (DLQI), treatment satisfaction (TPS), and medication beliefs (BMQ). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients and analyzed using thematic content analysis.
resultsDespite moderate-to-severe disease, 30% of patients had not received systemic therapy. Key patient-reported barriers included low treatment expectations, fear of side effects, and acceptance of chronic symptoms. High treatment satisfaction scores were observed even in the presence of severe disease and poor quality of life. Interview data revealed five thematic barriers across patient-, physician-, and system-levels, including therapeutic nihilism, limited access to specialists, and fragmented communication pathways.
conclusionThis study highlights a multifactorial pattern of clinical inertia in AD, with patient perception, therapeutic communication, and healthcare structures all playing a role. These findings underscore the need for structured shared decision-making (e.g., standardized risk-benefit counseling and written decision aids about systemic options), treat-to-target management (regular POEM/DLQI monitoring with predefined escalation triggers when targets are not met), and system-level improvements (clear referral pathways to AD specialists, adequate follow-up capacity, and streamlined approval processes for systemic therapies) to reduce delays in escalation and improve outcomes. As AD treatment options expand, addressing clinical inertia is critical to ensure timely and equitable care.
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.