CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareHealthcare Systems and Technology

Assessment of Patients' Acceptance of and Satisfaction with Teledermatology

Demiris, George, Speedie, Stuart M., Hicks, Lanis L.·2004·Journal of Medical Systems
DOI 10.1023/b:joms.0000044959.71456.df
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Teledermatology refers to the use of information and communication technologies (such as videoconferencing or transmission of digital images) to enable the practice of diagnostic dermatology between participants separated by geographic distance. The objective of this study was to critically review the quality of evidence about patient satisfaction with teledermatology applications. Sample size, reporting of validity and reliability, used instrument and its underlying constructs were determined for all studies where information was available. Fourteen studies were identified, five refer to store-and-forward applications, the remaining ones describe video-based systems. The systematic review demonstrated that methodological deficiencies in the published research impact the generalizability of findings. The two types of teledermatology (video-based and store-and-forward) require different satisfaction instruments as they are based on different contexts of care delivery, with video-mediated communication being key in the former and patients' absence from the diagnostic process in the latter mode of care delivery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:joms.0000044959.71456.df

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A review by Demiris et al. (2004) identified 14 studies related to consumer satisfaction and acceptance of teledermatology applications and concluded that satisfaction is multidimensional, covering convenience of the service, confidence in the result, and ease of communication with the clinician.

    “The authors concluded that the concept of satisfaction is multidimensional and should cover many underlying factors including convenience of the service; confidence in the result; and ease of communication with the clinician [18].”

    From Consumer preferences for teledermoscopy screening to detect melanoma early (2016) · cites this paper as [18]

  • The screening alternatives and attribute levels were chosen based on results of three previous surveys in the target group, a literature review, and included important screening outcome, financial and convenience considerations.

    “These alternatives, and the different attribute levels over which they vary, were chosen based on the results of three previous surveys undertaken in the target group [11], as well as a literature review [14, 16-22, 27, 28] and included important screening outcome, financial and convenience considerations.”

    From Consumer preferences for teledermoscopy screening to detect melanoma early (2016) · cites this paper as [18]

  • Many of the results supporting the importance of particular attributes in this study are in concordance with previous literature on consumer satisfaction with teledermoscopy or teledermatology.

    “Many of the results found supporting the importance of particular attributes in this study are in concordance with the previous literature focusing on consumer satisfaction with teledermoscopy or teledermatology more broadly [14,18,19,27,28].”

    From Consumer preferences for teledermoscopy screening to detect melanoma early (2016) · cites this paper as [18]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Demiris, G., Speedie, S. M., & Hicks, L. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Demiris, George
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Medical Systems
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-12
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
575-579
ISSN
  • 0148-5598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-689X
DOI
10.1023/b:joms.0000044959.71456.df
OpenAlex
W2095699267
Cited by
50
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
teledermatology, patient satisfaction, patient acceptance, store-and-forward telemedicine, dermatological diagnosis, quality of evidence, satisfaction measurement instrument
MeSH terms
Dermatology, Humans, Medical Informatics Applications, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Physician-Patient Relations, Patient Satisfaction, Focus Groups, Telemedicine, Remote Consultation, Videoconferencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review