Informatics-Based Psychotherapeutic and Psychiatric Interventions in Dermatology: A Scoping Review of Impacts on Skin Disease Severity and Mental Health Outcomes (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chronic dermatologic conditions such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa are associated with a high burden of psychiatric comorbidities, including depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Despite growing awareness of the psychosocial impact of skin diseases, mental health needs remain underaddressed in dermatologic care. Digital technologies (including teledermatology, mobile health apps, and internet-delivered psychotherapies) offer promising avenues for integrating psychotherapeutic and psychiatric interventions into dermatology. However, the scope, effectiveness, and implementation of such informatics-based approaches remain poorly mapped in the literature. Objective This scoping review aimed to systematically identify, categorize, and synthesize studies on digital psychotherapeutic and psychiatric interventions targeting patients with dermatological conditions, with a focus on clinical, mental health, and implementation outcomes. Methods Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across 5 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar) for articles published up to March 2025. Studies were included if they involved patients with dermatologic conditions and assessed interventions that combined a digital informatics component (eg, telehealth, apps, artificial intelligence, virtual platforms) with a psychotherapeutic or psychiatric element (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], mindfulness, consult-liaison psychiatry). Eligible study designs included clinical trials, observational studies, and mixed methods research. Data were extracted systematically, and methodological quality was assessed using JBI tools. Results Out of 15,176 records identified, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most interventions targeted psoriasis (9/11) and used asynchronous digital platforms such as internet-based CBT and mobile apps. Across studies, dropout rates ranged from 10% to 76%. Improvements in dermatologic quality of life were reported in 6 of 11 studies, with statistically significant reductions in depression and anxiety observed in multiple trials (eg, internet-based CBT and mindfulness-based interventions), alongside reductions in psoriasis severity (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) and itch intensity in randomized controlled trials. Intervention duration ranged from single-session virtual reality exposure to 8‐ to 12-week structured programs. However, long-term outcomes beyond 3 to 12 months were rarely assessed, and reporting of sociodemographic variables and equity-related factors was limited. Conclusions Informatics-based psychotherapeutic and psychiatric interventions represent a promising frontier in psychodermatology, with early evidence suggesting feasibility and potential clinical benefit. Digital platforms may expand access to mental health support and improve holistic care for patients with dermatologic conditions. However, significant gaps remain in terms of equity, long-term effectiveness, integration into clinical workflows, and adaptation for diverse populations. Future research should focus on rigorous, inclusive trials and the development of hybrid models that blend digital and face-to-face care to ensure sustainable and equitable impact.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".