In dermatology, digital health interventions (DHI) can play a role in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care, according to researchers behind a recent systematic review and mapping.1
IHDs, first classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2018, include telemedicine, mHealth, wearable technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms.2 Citing evidence demonstrating the benefits of telemedicine as a DHI (e.g., reduced wait times, high patient satisfaction, and comparable diagnostic accuracy), researchers Reinders et al. sought to systematically map and group studies relevant to IHD.
“Improvements can be achieved through data-driven decision-making in diagnosis and treatment, better communication between those involved in the care process, better self-management by patients with long-term conditions duration, but also to effective promotion of healthy behaviors,” according to Reinders et al.
In August 2022, researchers conducted a review of the MEDLINE (PubMed) database to search for relevant original studies evaluating the use of DHIs in dermatology. Search terms included “digital health,” “e-health,” “eHealth,” “mHealth,” “artificial intelligence,” and various dermatological conditions.
Studies conducted or published before 2010 were excluded from the analysis due to a difference in technology and technological advancements made in subsequent years. Studies included in the systematic mapping used quantitative measures, and any studies related to the use of AI algorithms were needed to compare the algorithm to human-provided standards of care in a real-world setting or in a application available on the market.
A team of 2 to 3 researchers (depending on the ambiguity of the studies evaluated) reviewed the titles and abstracts of all retrieved studies for eligibility and relevance. Data extracted included general study characteristics such as study design, year of publication, country of origin of the study, number of patients involved, and whether or not the study was a follow-up study.
Researchers also extracted data specific to DHI, such as WHO classifications of DHI, diagnosis and diagnostics, triage and referral, surveillance and follow-up, prevention, therapy or support, and training of health personnel. Healthcare personnel were then categorized as clients, healthcare professionals, or a combination of both.
DHIs were analyzed based on their effectiveness, efficiency, diagnostic performance, user-friendliness and acceptance. A total of 403 studies were included in the review.
The researchers noted that there has been a general increase in the number of studies related to DHI in recent years, particularly due to store-and-forward (S&F) teledermatology and image analysis via AI , particularly in correlation with health professionals.
Skin cancer identification accounted for 148 of the total studies, constituting the most common target of DHI. Other dermatological conditions such as acne vulgaris, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and wounds have also been included in DHI research, although on a smaller scale.
“We have identified a strong upward trend towards more studies in recent years. This trend has been particularly driven by studies of S&F teledermatology and artificial intelligence applications. Additionally, studies were largely aimed at skin cancer and often targeted healthcare providers as DHI users,” according to Reinders et al. “A diverse range of DHIs targeting different user groups for diverse purposes and indications was evaluated, highlighting the vast potential for future use of DHIs in dermatology. Nevertheless, to fully understand the capabilities of DHIs, further research is needed in promising areas such as the management and monitoring of chronic skin diseases and patient triage.
This article was originally published on Dermatology Times.
