Cited by 111Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyDigital Imaging in Medicine

A systematic review of satisfaction with teledermatology

Mounessa, Jessica S, Chapman, Stephanie, Braunberger, Taylor, Qin, Rosie, Lipoff, Jules B, Dellavalle, Robert P, Dunnick, Cory A·2018·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

Background: The two most commonly used modalities of teledermatology (TD) are store-and-forward (SF) and live–interactive (LI) TD. Existing studies have not compared these tools with respect to patient and provider satisfaction. Objective: To systematically review all published studies of patient and provider satisfaction with SF and LI TD. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies on provider or patient satisfaction with SF or LI TD between January 2000 and June 2016. Results: Forty eligible studies were identified: 32 with SF TD, 10 with LI TD, and 2 evaluating both. With SF TD, 96% of studies assessing patient satisfaction and 82% of studies assessing provider satisfaction demonstrated satisfaction ( n = 24 and 17, respectively). With LI TD, 89% of studies assessing patient satisfaction and all studies assessing provider satisfaction revealed satisfaction (n = 9 and 6, respectively). Conclusion: Patients and providers are satisfied with both SF and LI TD. Studies assessing satisfaction with LI have not been conducted in recent years, and have only been conducted in limited geographic patient populations. Further research assessing satisfaction with TD will help address any dissatisfaction with its uses and allow for increased support and funding of future programmes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1357633x17696587

Cites

56 of 56 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
Mounessa, J. S., Chapman, S., Braunberger, T., Qin, R., Lipoff, J. B., Dellavalle, R. P., & Dunnick, C. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of North Dakota (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Colorado School of Public Health (US)
  • VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
Dunnick, Cory A
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2017-03-28
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
263-270
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2601554386
Cited by
111
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5
FWCI
1.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (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, store-and-forward telemedicine, patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, telemedicine acceptance
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Dermatology, Humans, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine

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