| Literature DB >> 31382971 |
Ali Jasem Buabbas1, Prem Sharma2, Adel Al-Abdulrazaq3, Hashem Shehab4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential for smartphones to revolutionize the way that medical doctors practice has become a reality, particularly in specialities where visual examination is a principal step in assessing a medical case, like dermatology. Smartphones as devices hold similar capabilities to personal computers and laptops and could play an important role in supporting medical practitioners in clinical practice at the point of care and beyond. This study aimed to assess the role of smartphone technology use in dermatology practice in Kuwait, together with the potential of digital photography and users' concerns.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical photography; Dermatologist perspectives; Dermatology practice; Smartphone technology
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31382971 PMCID: PMC6683410 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0883-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Sample demographics (n = 101)
| Demographics | No. | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 50 | 49.5 |
| Female | 51 | 50.5 |
| Nationality | ||
| Kuwaiti | 61 | 60.4 |
| Non-Kuwaiti Arab | 40 | 39.6 |
| Age group (years) | ||
| 20–29 | 25 | 24.8 |
| 30–39 | 31 | 30.7 |
| 40–49 | 27 | 26.7 |
| > =50 | 18 | 17.8 |
| Mean (±SD) age/range | 39.1 + 10.7 | (20.0–72.0) |
| Practitioner level | ||
| Board resident | 13 | 12.9 |
| Assistant registrar | 14 | 13.9 |
| Registrar | 29 | 28.7 |
| Senior registrar | 16 | 15.8 |
| Specialist | 10 | 9.9 |
| Senior specialist | 9 | 8.9 |
| Consultant | 10 | 9.9 |
Fig. 1Use of non-communicative and communicative (interactive) applications
Fig. 2Clinical photography use (%) and respondents’ demographics BR = board resident, C = consultant, R = registrar and S = specialist
Clinical photography use and purpose
| Clinical Photography: | Gender | Nationality | Age (yrs) | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| To take clinical photographs of patients | 31/35 | 36/30 | 33/33 | 19/47 |
| p-value | 0.484 | 0.099 | 0.131 | 0.048 |
| To gain advice from consultants | 22/33 | 31/24 | 31/24 | 12/43 |
| p-value | 0.037 | 0.365 | 0.839 | 0.803 |
| For treatment/disease monitoring | 26/31 | 33/24 | 26/31 | 15/42 |
| p-value | 0.373 | 0.559 | 0.024 | 0.334 |
| To share with colleagues | 24/29 | 32/21 | 28/25 | 14/39 |
| p-value | 0.373 | 0.997 | 0.578 | 0.359 |
| For teaching purposes | 19/22 | 26/15 | 22/19 | 14/27 |
| p-value | 0.599 | 0.608 | 0.765 | 0.024 |
| For research and publications | 11/11 | 12/10 | 10/12 | 8/14 |
| p-value | 0.958 | 0.526 | 0.286 | 0.086 |
M = male, F = female, K=Kuwaiti, NK = non-Kuwaiti, BR = board resident, C = consultant, R = registrar and S = specialist
Rated level of importance (Mean ± SD) of smartphone technology
| Smartphone technology: use and purpose | Response | N (%) | Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| To take clinical photographs of patients | Yes | 66 (65.3) | 8.41 ± 1.88 | < 0.001 |
| No | 35 (34.7) | 4.91 ± 2.72 | ||
| To gain advice from consultants | Yes | 55 (54.5) | 8.60 ± 1.70 | < 0.001 |
| No | 46 (45.5) | 5.52 ± 2.86 | ||
| For treatment/disease monitoring | Yes | 57 (56.4) | 8.23 ± 2.00 | < 0.001 |
| No | 44 (43.6) | 5.86 ± 3.04 | ||
| To share with colleagues | Yes | 53 (52.5) | 8.40 ± 1.83 | < 0.001 |
| No | 48 (47.5) | 5.88 ± 3.01 | ||
| For teaching purposes | Yes | 41(40.6) | 8.51 ± 1.78 | < 0.001 |
| No | 60 (59.4) | 6.70 ± 2.95 | ||
| For research and publications | Yes | 22 (21.8) | 8.41 ± 1.18 | < 0.001 |
| No | 79 (78.2) | 6.86 ± 2.97 |
Fig. 3Perceived importance of smartphone technology (mean score with 95% CI) among the dermatologists, with respect to demographics. K=Kuwaiti, NK = non-Kuwaiti, y = year, BR = board resident, C = consultant, R = registrar and S = specialist
Fig. 4Distribution of smartphones’ difficulties faced by practitioners (in percentages)
Fig. 5Distribution of practitioners’ challenges when using smartphones (in percentages)