Operational teledermatology in Broken Hill, Rural Australia
Abstract
From January 2001 to January 2002, Broken Hill, New South Wales, served as a trial site for teledermatology as one method of access to dermatologists. Fourteen participating general practitioners referred 46 patients making up 48 teledermatology cases. The mean diagnostic agreement between general practitioners and dermatologists was 35% and 50% for primary and differential diagnoses, respectively. Teledermatology patients formed 12% of the collectively referred dermatology patients (outpatients and teledermatology). In this project, high patient and general practitioner acceptability and positive medical outcomes confirm the value of rural teledermatology. However, this project also revealed unexpected barriers and pitfalls in the effective operation of rural teledermatology. Lack of education of participants, inertia among potential users and patient inconvenience are issues that may adversely affect the effective implementation of rural teledermatology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Clinical concordance rates for tele-dermatology vary from 35% to 61% for synchronous systems and from 41% to 95% for asynchronous systems.
“Similarly, clinical concordance rates vary from 35% (See et al., 2005) to 61% (Thind et al., 2011) for synchronous systems, and from 41% to 95% (Whited, 2006) for asynchronous systems.”
From Patient and practitioner satisfaction with tele-dermatology including Australia’s indigenous population: A systematic review of the literature (2016) · cites this paper as See et al., 2005
Cites
Reliability and accuracy of dermatologists’ clinic-based and digital image consultations
Whited, J. D., Hall, R. P., Simel, D. L., Foy, M. E., Stechuchak, K. M., Drugge, R. J., Grichnik, J. M., Myers, S. A., & Horner, R. D. (1999) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70003-4 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Patient and referring provider satisfaction with teledermatology
Weinstock, M. A., Nguyen, F. Q., & Risica, P. M. (2002) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.119666 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Lim, A. C., Egerton, I. B., See, A., & Shumack, S. P. (2001) · Australasian Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1046/j.1440-0960.2001.00529.x · Cited by 93 · cited 3× · see citing works
“From the urban study, it may be inferred that patients generally receive earlier, more accurate diagnoses using teledermatology than from an unassisted GP, leading to fewer return visits to GP and lower consumption of prescription and over-the-counter medications, resulting in cost-savings to the patient and the gover…”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe reliability of diagnosis using store-and-forward teledermatology
Du Moulin, M. F. M. T., Bullens-Goessens, Y. I. J. M., Henquet, C. J. M., Brunenberg, D. E. M., de Bruyn-Geraerds, D. P., Winkens, R. A. G., Dirksen, C. D., Vierhout, W. P. M., & Neumann, H. A. M. (2003) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/135763303769211247 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Teledermatology as a tool for communication between general practitioners and dermatologists
van den Akker, T. W., Reker, C. H. M., Knol, A., Post, J., Wilbrink, J., & van der Veen, J. P. W. (2001) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/1357633011936390 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Patient satisfaction with teledermatology services
Hicks, L. L., Boles, K. E., Hudson, S., Kling, B., Tracy, J., Mitchell, J. A., & Webb, W. (2003) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/135763303321159684 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Patient Satisfaction with Store-and-Forward Teledermatology
Williams, T., May, C., Esmail, A., Ellis, N., Griffiths, C., Stewart, E., Fitzgerald, D., Morgan, M., Mould, M., Pickup, L., et al. (2001) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x010070s118 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Trial of low-cost teledermatology in primary care
Hockey, A. D., Wootton, R., & Casey, T. (2004) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/1357633042614221 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Progress in Australian teledermatology
Lim, A., See, A., & Shumack, S. P. (2001) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/1357633011937146 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationLim, A., & Shumack, S. P. (2000) · Australasian Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1046/j.1440-0960.2000.00452.x · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nelson, C. A., Takeshita, J., Wanat, K. A., Bream, K. D. W., Holmes, J. H., Koenig, H. C., Roth, R. R., Vuppalapati, A., James, W. D., & Kovarik, C. L. (2016) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.09.058 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Armstrong, A. W., Johnson, M. A., Lin, S., Maverakis, E., Fazel, N., & Liu, F.-T. (2015) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.2299 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Scope of Policy Issues in eHealth: Results From a Structured Literature Review
Khoja, S., Durrani, H., Nayani, P., & Fahim, A. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1633 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Colven, R., Shim, M.-H. M., Brock, D., & Todd, G. (2011) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2010.0163 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Geriatric teledermatology: <i>store‐and‐forward</i> vs. <i>face‐to‐face</i> examination
Rubegni, P., Nami, N., Cevenini, G., Poggiali, S., Hofmann‐Wellenhof, R., Massone, C., Bilenchi, R., Bartalini, M., Cappelli, R., & Fimiani, M. (2011) · Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.03986.x · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Kozera, E. K., Yang, A., & Murrell, D. F. (2016) · International Journal of Women's Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2016.06.004 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
A longitudinal study of consistency in diagnostic accuracy of teledermatology tools
Kanthraj, G. (2013) · Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology · doi:10.4103/0378-6323.116735 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- See, A., Lim, A. C., Le, K., See, J., & Shumack, S. P.
- Corresponding author
- Shumack, Stephen P
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-07-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 144-149
- ISSN
- 0004-8380 (ISSN-L)
- 1440-0960
- OpenAlex
- W2159461257
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australasian Journal of Dermatology (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, rural health, general practitioner referral, diagnostic agreement, implementation barriers, patient acceptability, Broken Hill
- MeSH terms
- Dermatology, Family Practice, Humans, New South Wales, Professional Practice Location, Referral and Consultation, Program Evaluation, Telemedicine, Rural Health Services
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
