| Literature DB >> 34028471 |
Judy Hamad1, Amy Fox1, Maria Suzanne Kammire1, Alison Nancy Hollis1, Saif Khairat2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As teledermatology has been widely adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to examine patients' experiences and satisfaction with teledermatology.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; cross-sectional; dermatology; digital health; implementation; patient satisfaction; patient-centered outcomes; teledermatology; telehealth; virtual health
Year: 2021 PMID: 34028471 PMCID: PMC8104278 DOI: 10.2196/25999
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Dermatol ISSN: 2562-0959
Participants’ characteristics (N=184).
| Characteristic | Value | |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 37.8 (18.3) | |
|
| ||
|
| Male | 50 (27.2) |
|
| Female | 134 (72.8) |
|
| ||
|
| White | 114 (62) |
|
| Black/African American | 44 (23.9) |
|
| Hispanic/Latino | 12 (6.5) |
|
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 10 (5.4) |
|
| Other | 4 (2.2) |
|
| ||
|
| Less than high school | 21 (11.4) |
|
| High school or equivalent | 32 (17.4) |
|
| Some college | 28 (15.2) |
|
| Associate degree | 11 (6) |
|
| Bachelor's degree | 46 (25) |
|
| Graduate, doctorate, or professional degree | 46 (25) |
|
| ||
|
| Urban | 47 (25.5) |
|
| Suburban | 87 (47.3) |
|
| Rural | 50 (27.2) |
| Unique patient zip codes reached, n | 84 | |
|
| ||
|
| Uninsured | 6 (3.3) |
|
| Private insurance | 109 (59.2) |
|
| Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare | 69 (37.5) |
|
| ||
|
| Visual | 29 (15.8) |
|
| Auditory | 5 (2.7) |
|
| Both | 3 (1.6) |
|
| None | 147 (79.9) |
|
| ||
|
| New | 61 (33.1) |
|
| Existing | 123 (66.8) |
|
| ||
|
| Yes (telehealth-experienced patient) | 77 (41.8) |
|
| No (telehealth-naïve patient) | 107 (58.2) |
|
| ||
|
| Video | 171 (92.9) |
|
| Telephone | 13 (7.1) |
Figure 1Patient-centered satisfaction outcomes following the completion of teledermatology visits.
Figure 2New and follow-up patients' overall satisfaction with teledermatology.
Figure 3New and follow-up patients' satisfaction with the following patient-related outcomes: comfort, ease, privacy, and previsit planning experiences.
Univariate logistic regression results for predicting patient’s willingness to use teledermatology in the future.
| Predictor | Preferred telehealth, odds ratio (95% CI) | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| <18 | Referent | N/Aa | ||
|
| 18-34 | 1.51 (0.54-4.24) | .44 | ||
|
| 35-64 | 1.14 (0.40-3.25) | .80 | ||
|
| ≥65 | 0.42 (0.11-1.55) | .11 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Female | Referent | N/A | ||
|
| Male | 1.16 (0.61-2.23) | .65 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| White | Referent | N/A | ||
|
| Black/African American | 1.19 (0.59-2.39) | .62 | ||
|
| Other | 1.19 (0.51-2.80) | .69 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Less than high school | Referent | N/A | ||
|
| High school or equivalent | 0.62 (0.21-1.89) | .40 | ||
|
| Some college | 0.43 (0.13-1.38) | .16 | ||
|
| Associate degree | 0.20 (0.03-1.17) | .08 | ||
|
| Bachelor's degree | 1.41 (0.50-4.01) | .51 | ||
|
| Graduate, doctorate, or professional degree | 0.99 (0.35-2.79) | .99 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Rural | Referent | N/A | ||
|
| Suburban | 1.23 (0.61-2.48) | .56 | ||
|
| Urban | 1.57 (0.70-3.50) | .70 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare | Referent | N/A | ||
|
| Private insurance | 1.2 (0.66-2.20) | .55 | ||
|
| Uninsured | 0.61 (0.11-3.57) | .59 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| New | Referent | N/A | ||
|
| Follow-up | 1.46 (0.79-2.72) | .23 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| No | Referent | N/A | ||
|
| Yes | 2.39 (1.31-4.35) | .004 | ||
aN/A: not applicable.