Exploring Acceptability, Barriers, and Facilitators for Digital Health in Dermatology: Qualitative Focus Groups With Dermatologists, Nurses, and Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although several digital health interventions (DHIs) have shown promise in the care of skin diseases their uptake in Germany has been limited. To fully understand the reasons for the low uptake, an in-depth analysis of patients' and health care providers' barriers and facilitators in dermatology is needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore and compare attitudes, acceptability, barriers, and facilitators of patients, dermatologists, and nurses toward DHIs in dermatology. METHODS: We conducted 6 web-based focus groups each with patients (n=34), dermatologists (n=30), and nurses (n=30) using a semistructured interview guide with short descriptions of DHIs described in the literature. A content analysis was performed using deductive constructs, following the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology framework, and inductive categories. RESULTS: Patients identified many positive performance expectancies, such as reduced travel times and improvement in follow-up appointments. Dermatologists also stated positive effects (eg, promotion of standardized care), but also negative implications of health care digitalization (eg, increased workload). All stakeholders reported that a DHI should bring additional value to all stakeholders. A lack of digital competence among patients was identified as the major barrier to adoption by all 3 groups. Nurses and dermatologists want apps that are easy to use and easy to implement into their daily routines. Trust in selected institutions, colleagues, and physicians was identified as a facilitator. Patients reported their dependence on the dermatologists' acceptance. All groups expressed concerns about data privacy risks and dermatologists stated insecurities toward data privacy laws. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure successful digitalization in dermatology, apps should be user-friendly, adapted to users' skill levels, and beneficial for all stakeholders. The incorporation of dermatologists' perspectives is especially important as their acceptance may impact use among patients and nurses. DHIs should ensure and be transparent about data privacy. The found barriers and facilitators can be used for implementation strategies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".