Cited by 81Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyDigital Imaging in Medicine

Teledermatology in the United States: An Update in a Dynamic Era

Yim, Kaitlyn M., Florek, Aleksandra G., Oh, Dennis H., McKoy, Karen, Armstrong, April W.·2018·Telemedicine and e-Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Teledermatology is rapidly advancing in the United States. The last comprehensive survey of U.S. teledermatology programs was conducted in 2011. INTRODUCTION: This article provides an update regarding the state of teledermatology programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Active programs were identified and surveyed from November 2014 to January 2017. Findings regarding practice settings, consult volumes, payment methods, and delivery modalities were compared to those from the 2011 survey. Findings from the Veterans Affairs (VA) were reported as an aggregate. RESULTS: There were 40 active nongovernmental programs, amounting to a 48% increase and 30% discontinuation rate over five years. Academia remained the most common practice setting (50%). Median annual consultation volume was comparable with 263 consultations, but maximum annual consultation volume increased (range: 20-20,000). The most frequent payment method was self-pay (53%). Store-and-forward continued to be the most common delivery modality. In Fiscal Year 2016, the VA System consisted of 62 consultation sites and performed a total of 101,507 consultations. DISCUSSION: The limitations of this study were that consult volume and payment methods were not available from all programs. CONCLUSION: U.S. teledermatology programs have increased in number and annual consultation volume. Academia is the most prevalent practice setting, and self-pay is the dominant accepted payment method. Innovative platforms and the provision of direct-to-patient care are changing the practice of teledermatology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2017.0253

Cites

31 of 31 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yim, K. M., Florek, A. G., Oh, D. H., McKoy, K., & Armstrong, A. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Armstrong, April W.
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Published
2018-09
Volume
24
Issue
9
Pages
691-697
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
OpenAlex
W2784963878
Cited by
81
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4
FWCI
10.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Digital Imaging in Medicine
Keywords
teledermatology, payment methods, store-and-forward telemedicine
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Dermatology, Financing, Personal, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Insurance, Health, Reimbursement, Private Practice, Skin Diseases, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Telemedicine, Remote Consultation

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