e-Health Tools for Targeting and Improving Melanoma Screening: A Review
Open accessAbstract
The key to improved prognosis for melanoma is early detection and diagnosis, achieved by skin surveillance and secondary prevention (screening). However, adherence to screening guidelines is low, with population-based estimates of approximately 26% for physician-based skin cancer screening and 20–25% for skin self-examination. The recent proliferation of melanoma detection “e-Health” tools, digital resources that facilitate screening in patients often outside of the clinical setting, may offer new strategies to promote adherence and expand the proportion and range of individuals performing skin self-examination. The purpose of this paper is to catalog and categorize melanoma screening e-Health tools to aid in the determination of their efficacy and potential for adoption. The availability and accessibility of such tools, their costs, target audience, and, where possible, information on their efficacy, will be discussed with potential benefits and limitations considered. While e-Health tools targeting melanoma screening are widely available, little has been done to formally evaluate their efficacy and ability to aid in overcoming screening barriers. Future research needs to formally evaluate the potential role of e-Health tools in melanoma prevention.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
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 [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Tyagi, A., Miller, K., & Cockburn, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cockburn, Myles
- Venue
- Journal of Skin Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 2012
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 2090-2905 (ISSN-L)
- 2090-2913
- PMC
- PMC3530856
- OpenAlex
- W2008904928
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Skin Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA158407, R01CA121052)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
- Keywords
- melanoma screening, eHealth tools, skin self-examination, skin cancer surveillance, screening adherence, digital health interventions, melanoma prevention, secondary prevention, barriers to screening
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
