MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155354651 · doi:10.2196/21555

Patient Factors Associated with Interest in Teledermatology: Cross-sectional Survey

2021· article· en· W3155354651 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthDermatology FoundationU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsTeledermatologyCross-sectional studyMedicineHealth careLogistic regressionHealth Information National Trends SurveyFamily medicineTelemedicinePatient portalHealth informationPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Teledermatology is a conduit for patients communicating with dermatologists on the internet, which bypasses in-person visits. It holds promise to address access needs for dermatologic care; however, the interest in using teledermatology is unknown in underserved populations with potential barriers to the use of health care technology. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the association between demographic characteristics with interest in exchanging digital images or videos of skin lesions with health care providers electronically. METHODS: We examined data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 4 cycle 4 (2014) of the National Cancer Institute. HINTS is a cross-sectional, nationally representative household survey conducted annually, which collects information on demographics, perceptions and use of health information, and provides information on how cancer risks are perceived. HINTS 4 cycle 4 had a sample of 3677 participants. We examined the outcome to the question, "how interested are you in exchanging digital images or videos (eg, photos of skin lesions) with a health care provider electronically?" We dichotomized the outcome by a high level of interest (responding with "very") and those who did not have a high level of interest (responding with "somewhat," "a little," or "not at all") in exchanging images or videos. We used a multivariable logistic regression model developed through backwards selection, with all final covariates associated with varying levels of teledermatology use at P<.05. Sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the outcome dichotomy to model those who were "not at all" interested. Two-sided tests were performed with P<.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Among 3447 respondents, 888 (weighted prevalence=26.2%) were "very" interested in participating in teledermatology. A higher interest in using teledermatology was associated with a younger age, higher educational attainment, higher household income, internet usage, type of mobile device ownership, history of electronic medical information exchange with a clinician within the past 12 months, and high level of trust in web-based information on cancer (for all, P<.01), but not with the female gender, race or ethnicity, health insurance status, or having a regular medical provider. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable access barriers to teledermatology adoption include trust, experience with teledermatology, and use of health apps. Teledermatology program implementation should address these specific factors within the digital divide to promote equitable access to care across diverse patient populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it