暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are relevant in clinical practice showing patient benefits, supporting clinicians\' decision-making, and contributing to the delivery of high standards of care. Digital monitoring of patient-reported outcomes is still rare. The Patient Benefit Index (PBI) measures benefits and goals from patients\' views and may be relevant for regular documentation and shared decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop electronic versions of the PBI to examine their feasibility and acceptability in clinical practice for patients with psoriasis.
METHODS: We developed an app and a web version of the existing, valid PBI using focus groups and cognitive debriefings with patients before conducting a quantitative survey on its feasibility and acceptability. Conduction took part in an outpatient dermatology care unit in Germany. Descriptive and subgroup analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 139 patients completed the electronic PBIs (ePBIs) and took part in the survey. The ePBI was understandable (n=129-137, 92.8%-98.6%) and feasible, for example, easy to read (n=135, 97.1%) and simple to handle (n=137, 98.5%). Acceptability was also high, for example, patients can imagine using and discussing the ePBI data in practice (n=91, 65.5%) and documenting it regularly (n=88, 63.3%). They believe it could support treatment decisions (n=118, 84.9%) and improve communication with their physician (n=112, 81.3%). They can imagine filling in electronic questionnaires regularly (n=118, 84.9%), even preferring electronic over paper versions (n=113, 81.2%). Older and less educated people show less feasibility, but the latter expected the relationship with their physician to improve and would be more willing to invest time or effort.
CONCLUSIONS: The app and web version of the PBI are usable and acceptable for patients offering comprehensive documentation and patient participation in practice. An implementation strategy should consider patients\' needs, barriers, and facilitators but also physicians\' attitudes and requirements from the health care system.

暂无摘要。

Studies examining the real-world treatment satisfaction in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) and the physicians who treat adults with AD are scarce. We sought to characterize treatment satisfaction of adults with AD and physicians\' perceived patient satisfaction with AD treatment. We performed a cross-sectional study of adults > = 18 years of age (modified AD UK Working Party Criteria, age onset < = 18 [N = 767]) with AD and a parallel-physician survey among allergists/immunologists [N = 148], dermatologists [N = 149] and primary care medicine [N = 104]. Logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with patient treatment satisfaction (PTS) or physician-perceived patient treatment satisfaction (pPTS). Factors associated with increased PTS included female, older age, and receiving a written eczema action plan (EAP). Severe AD, itch, pain, and insomnia, greater impact on partner relationships, feeling not adequately informed about AD causes, and being separated, never married, or living with a partner was associated with less PTS. From the physician\'s perspective, mild AD and development of EAP was associated with increase pPTS, whereas being in practice longer was associated with less pPTS. Limitations include the potential for misclassification of AD and the inability to match AD patients to individual physicians. Recognizing which factors are associated with treatment satisfaction can help inform counseling and decision-making strategies, including the use of an eczema action plan, and support patient-physician outcomes alignment.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty obtaining a dermatological consultation is an obstacle to the early diagnosis of melanoma. On the one hand, patients survival depends on the lesion thickness at the time of diagnosis. On the other hand, dermatologists treat many patients with benign lesions. Optimizing patient care pathways is a major concern. The aim of the present study was to assess whether the e-mail transmission of photographs of suspected melanoma lesions between general practitioners (GPs) and dermatologists reduces the time to dermatological consultation for patients whose suspicious skin lesions ultimately require resection.
METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled study in primary care involving 51 French GPs between April 2017 and August 2019. A total of 250 patients referred to a dermatologist for a suspected melanoma lesion were included GPs were randomized to either the smartphone arm or the usual care arm. In the smartphone arm, the GPs referred patients to the dermatologist by sending 2 photographs of the suspicious lesion using their smartphone. The dermatologist then had to set up an appointment at an appropriate time. In the usual care arm, GPs referred patients to a dermatologist according to their usual practice. The primary outcome was the time to dermatological consultation for patients whose lesion ultimately required resection.
RESULTS: 57 GPs volunteered were randomized (27 to the smartphone arm, and 30 to the usual care arm). A total of 125 patients were included in each arm (mean age: 49.8 years; 53% women) and followed 8 months. Twenty-three dermatologists participated in the study. The time to dermatological consultation for patients whose suspicious skin lesion required resection was 56.5 days in the smartphone arm and 63.7 days in the usual care arm (mean adjusted time reduction: -18.5 days, 95% CI [-74.1;23.5], p = .53).
CONCLUSIONS: The e-mail transmission of photographs from GPs to dermatologists did not improve the dermatological management of patients whose suspicious skin lesions ultimately required resection. Further research is needed to validate quality criteria that might be useful for tele-expertise in dermatology.
BACKGROUND: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under reference number NCT03137511 (May 2, 2017).

BACKGROUND: Dermatologic patient education materials (PEMs) are often written above the national average seventh- to eighth-grade reading level. ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, DermGPT, and DocsGPT are large language models (LLMs) that are responsive to user prompts. Our project assesses their use in generating dermatologic PEMs at specified reading levels.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the ability of select LLMs to generate PEMs for common and rare dermatologic conditions at unspecified and specified reading levels. Further, the study aims to assess the preservation of meaning across such LLM-generated PEMs, as assessed by dermatology resident trainees.
METHODS: The Flesch-Kincaid reading level (FKRL) of current American Academy of Dermatology PEMs was evaluated for 4 common (atopic dermatitis, acne vulgaris, psoriasis, and herpes zoster) and 4 rare (epidermolysis bullosa, bullous pemphigoid, lamellar ichthyosis, and lichen planus) dermatologic conditions. We prompted ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, DermGPT, and DocsGPT to \"Create a patient education handout about [condition] at a [FKRL]\" to iteratively generate 10 PEMs per condition at unspecified fifth- and seventh-grade FKRLs, evaluated with Microsoft Word readability statistics. The preservation of meaning across LLMs was assessed by 2 dermatology resident trainees.
RESULTS: The current American Academy of Dermatology PEMs had an average (SD) FKRL of 9.35 (1.26) and 9.50 (2.3) for common and rare diseases, respectively. For common diseases, the FKRLs of LLM-produced PEMs ranged between 9.8 and 11.21 (unspecified prompt), between 4.22 and 7.43 (fifth-grade prompt), and between 5.98 and 7.28 (seventh-grade prompt). For rare diseases, the FKRLs of LLM-produced PEMs ranged between 9.85 and 11.45 (unspecified prompt), between 4.22 and 7.43 (fifth-grade prompt), and between 5.98 and 7.28 (seventh-grade prompt). At the fifth-grade reading level, GPT-4 was better at producing PEMs for both common and rare conditions than ChatGPT-3.5 (P=.001 and P=.01, respectively), DermGPT (P<.001 and P=.03, respectively), and DocsGPT (P<.001 and P=.02, respectively). At the seventh-grade reading level, no significant difference was found between ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, DocsGPT, or DermGPT in producing PEMs for common conditions (all P>.05); however, for rare conditions, ChatGPT-3.5 and DocsGPT outperformed GPT-4 (P=.003 and P<.001, respectively). The preservation of meaning analysis revealed that for common conditions, DermGPT ranked the highest for overall ease of reading, patient understandability, and accuracy (14.75/15, 98%); for rare conditions, handouts generated by GPT-4 ranked the highest (14.5/15, 97%).
CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4 appeared to outperform ChatGPT-3.5, DocsGPT, and DermGPT at the fifth-grade FKRL for both common and rare conditions, although both ChatGPT-3.5 and DocsGPT performed better than GPT-4 at the seventh-grade FKRL for rare conditions. LLM-produced PEMs may reliably meet seventh-grade FKRLs for select common and rare dermatologic conditions and are easy to read, understandable for patients, and mostly accurate. LLMs may play a role in enhancing health literacy and disseminating accessible, understandable PEMs in dermatology.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Social media has fostered a landscape where trends, ideals, and beauty standards have significantly proliferated. Images of flawless skin, sculpted features, and curated aesthetics inundate user feeds, potentially shaping their self-perceptions and aspirations. The rise of influencers, dermatologist social media engagement, and beauty campaigns sharing skincare routines and product recommendations wield substantial influence over individual appearance-related decisions.
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study is to determine the pattern of behavior in using social media to seek dermatological procedures and skin care routine.
METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, online cross-sectional study targeting the general Saudi population. Our survey aimed to understand participant social media behaviors and gather insights into skincare products, cosmetic procedures, and makeup habits.
RESULTS: Gender-related differences emerged in seeking skincare advice. Females preferred dermatologists on social media (p < 0.001) and beauty influencers (p < 0.001), whereas men leaned towards pharmacists (p < 0.001). Women displayed stronger engagement with dermatologist social media reputation regarding non-cosmetic concerns (p < 0.001), education (p < 0.001), and social media impact on cosmetic decisions (p = 0.001). They frequently sought dermatologists on social media before appointments (p = 0.001), whereas men emphasized dermatologists\' fame (p = 0.024). Common cosmetic barriers included high costs (62.5%), complications (40.3%), and trust issues (40.2%). Women underwent various cosmetic procedures (p < 0.05), influenced by social media in their decisions and skincare routines.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals significant gender-based disparities in seeking skincare advice. Women rely on social media, clinics, friends, and beauty influencers, whereas men prefer pharmacists. Additionally, women depend on dermatologists\' social media reputation and conduct thorough pre-appointment research. Their heightened social media engagement links to skincare practices and influences cosmetic procedure considerations based on age and usage frequency.

The diagnostic accuracy rate of live videoconferencing (LVC) teledermatology, by board-certified dermatologists compared to non-dermatologists has not yet been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of board-certified dermatologists, dermatology specialty trainees, and board-certified internists in LVC teledermatology. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians from different specialties in diagnosing the same group of patients. The clinicians were isolated from each other during the diagnosis process. We enrolled 18 volunteer physicians (six board-certified dermatologists, six dermatology specialty trainees, and six board-certified internists) who reviewed the skin conditions of 18 patients via LVC teledermatology. The diagnostic accuracy of the participating physicians was evaluated using the final diagnosis as the reference standard. The diagnostic accuracy averages were compared according to the physicians\' specialties and disease categories. The mean ± standard deviation diagnostic accuracy of the most detailed level diagnosis was 83.3% ± 3.5% (range, 77.8%-89.0%) for board-certified dermatologists, 53.7 ± 20.7% (range 27.8%-77.8%) for dermatology specialty trainees, and 27.8 ± 5.0% (range, 22.2%-33.3%) for board-certified internists. Board-certified dermatologists showed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy, not only against board-certified internists (p < 0.0001) but also against dermatology specialty trainees (p < 0.05). Disease categories with high accuracy rates (≥80%) only by board-certified dermatologists were inflammatory papulosquamous dermatoses (87.5%), compared to 58.3%, and 20.8% for dermatology specialty trainees and board-certified internists respectively). For inflammatory erythemas and other reactive inflammatory dermatoses the accuracy rates for board-certified dermatologists, dermatology specialty trainees, and board-certified internists were 83.3%, 33.3%, 8.3% respectively; for melanoma in situ neoplasms, 83.3%, 50.0%, 66.7% respectively), and for genetic disorders of keratinization 83.3%, 33.3%, and 0% respectively). Our findings showed that board-certified dermatologists may have high diagnostic accuracy with practical safety and effectiveness in LVC teledermatology.

BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies have led to increasing numbers of patients with psoriasis who have clear or nearly clear skin. It is current practice to continue biologic therapy indefinitely in these patients, which contributes to a substantial long-term drug and healthcare burden. \'As needed\' biologic therapy in psoriasis may address this; however, our understanding of patient and clinician perceptions of this strategy is limited.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of both patients and clinicians regarding the acceptability of an \'as needed\' approach to biologic therapy in psoriasis, including potential barriers and enablers to implementation in routine care.
METHODS: We first conducted UK-wide online scoping surveys of patients with psoriasis and dermatology clinicians to explore their views on \'as needed\' biologic therapy. Using topic guides informed by these survey findings, we then carried out qualitative focus groups with patients and clinicians. Themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Of 67 patients and 27 clinicians completing the scoping surveys, 67% (43 of 64 patients) and 78% (21 of 27 clinicians) supported the use of \'as needed\' biologic therapy, respectively. Respondents highlighted advantages such as a reduction in healthcare burden and greater ownership of care. Challenges included logistics of \'as needed\' drug provision and potential risks of disease flare and drug immunogenicity. Focus groups comprised 15 patients with psoriasis [9 female patients (60%), average disease duration 32 years (range 9-64)] and 9 dermatology clinicians [8 female clinicians (89%), average dermatology experience 20 years (range 8-33)]. Both patients and clinicians felt that an \'as needed\' treatment approach will deliver a reduction in treatment burden and present an opportunity for patient-led ownership of care. Both groups highlighted the importance of ensuring ongoing access to medication and discussing the potential impact of psoriasis recurrence. Patient preferences were influenced by their lived experiences, particularly previous difficulties with medication delivery logistics and establishing disease control. Clinician perspectives were informed by personal experience of their patients adapting their own dosing schedules. Clinicians highlighted the importance of targeted patient selection for an \'as needed\' approach, ongoing disease monitoring, and prompt reaccess to medications upon psoriasis recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that \'as needed\' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Formal assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is warranted to enable the real-world potential of this approach to be realized.
Psoriasis is a common skin disease that affects up to 2% of adults in the UK and causes red, scaly patches of skin. A new group of injectable medicines (called biologics) are extremely effective at controlling psoriasis. However, continuous use of these medicines can increase the risk of negative side-effects (such as infections). ‘As needed’ biologic therapy is when a person takes their biologic medication at the first sign of psoriasis recurrence (rather than continuously). This approach has potential to reduce the risks associated with taking biologics, while still maintaining good control of psoriasis symptoms. ‘As needed’ therapy has not been used in psoriasis yet, and so we wanted to know what people with psoriasis and healthcare professionals thought about this approach. We carried out national surveys of people with psoriasis and healthcare professionals to explore their views on ‘as needed’ biologic therapy. We also held group interviews to understand in more detail the positive aspects and potential issues with this approach. Overall, we found that an ‘as needed’ approach was viewed as acceptable by people with psoriasis and healthcare professionals. They thought this approach would reduce the negative impacts of treatment and allow patients to have more ownership of their care. Potential issues included the possibility of patients’ psoriasis returning, as well as ensuring that they had access to medication quickly enough when needed. These findings indicate that ‘as needed’ biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable from both a patient and clinician perspective.