Mobile Teledermatology: A Promising Future in Clinical Practice

Abstract

French

Background:

As a product of electronic health, teledermatology is a cost-effective means of improving access to care, facilitating specialist consultations, and supporting patient self-management. Even so, use of traditional teledermatology services is limited by infrastructure and costs in the form of digital cameras, computers, and Internet access.

Methods:

Considering the significant improvement in smartphone camera resolution and the rapidly increasing number of physicians using smartphones, we explored the use of smartphones as reliable, effective clinical tools in store-and-forward teledermatology. We describe the technical specifications of modern smartphone cameras, the widespread use of smartphones by physicians, and the advantages of smartphones over traditional camera and Internet teledermatology, and we propose recommendations as to how mobile teledermatology may be more effectively used in modern dermatologic practice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Farshidi

Craft

Ochoa

. Mobile teledermatology: As doctors and patients are increasingly mobile, technology keeps us connected. Skinmed 2011;9:231–8.

Kanthraj

. Teledermatology: Its role in dermatosurgery. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2008;1:68–74, doi:10.4103/0974-2077.44162.

Lyon

Harrison

. Digital imaging and teledermatology: Educational and diagnostic applications of a portable digital imaging system for the trainee dermatologist. Clin Exp Dermatol 1997;22:163–5, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.1997.tb01052.x.

Chung

Scheinfeld

. Using cellphones for teledermatology, a preliminary study. Dermatol Online J 2007;13:2.

Ferrandiz

Ruiz-de-Casas

Martin-Gutierrez

. Effect of teledermatology on the prognosis of patients with cutaneous melanoma. Arch Dermatol 2012;148:1025–8, doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2012.778.

Lamel

Haldeman

Ely

. Application of mobile teledermatology for skin cancer screening. J Am Acad Dermatol 2012;67:576–81, doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2011.11.957.

van der Heijden

de Keizer

Bos

. Teledermatology applied following patient selection by general practitioners in daily practice improves efficiency and quality of care at lower cost. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:1058–65, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10509.x.

Rubegni

Nami

Cevenini

. Geriatric teledermatology: Store-and-forward vs. face-to-face examination. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011;25:1334–9, doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.03986.x.

Tran

Ayad

Weinberg

. Mobile teledermatology in the developing world: Implications of a feasibility study on 30 Egyptian patients with common skin diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011;64:302–9, doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2010.01.010.

10.

Kroemer

Fruhauf

Campbell

. Mobile teledermatology for skin tumour screening: Diagnostic accuracy of clinical and dermoscopic image tele-evaluation using cellular phones. Br J Dermatol 2011;164:973–9, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10208.x.

11.

Massone

Brunasso

Campbell

. Mobile teledermoscopy—melanoma diagnosis by one click? Semin Cutan Med Surg 2009;28:203–5, doi:10.1016/j.sder.2009.06.002.

12.

Harrison

Kirby

Dickinson

. Teledermatology—high technology or not? J Telemed Telecare 1998;4 Suppl 1:31–2, doi:10.1258/1357633981931344.

13.

Borve

Holst

Gente-Lidholm

. Use of the mobile phone multimedia messaging service for teledermatology. J Telemed Telecare 2012;18:292–6, doi:10.1258/jtt.2012.120206.

14.

Seidenari

Pellacani

Righi

. Is JPEG compression of videomicroscopic images compatible with telediagnosis? Comparison between diagnostic performance and pattern recognition on uncompressed TIFF images and JPEG compressed ones. Telemed J E Health 2004;10:294–303, doi:10.1089/tmj.2004.10.294.

15.

Putzer

Park

. Are physicians likely to adopt emerging mobile technologies? Attitudes and innovation factors affecting smartphone use in the southeastern United States. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2012;9:1b.

16.

Katz-Sidlow

Ludwig

Miller

. Smartphone use during inpatient attending rounds: Prevalence, patterns and potential for distraction. J Hosp Med 2012;7:595–9, doi:10.1002/jhm.1950.

17.

Sheth

Kane

. Smart-phone makers call the doctor. Wall Street Journal 2009 Oct 8; Health Industry.

18.

Dimond

. The iDoc Project. Cardiff University. Available at: http://www.walesdeanery.org/index.php/en/deanery/new-initiatives/887-the-idoc-project.html (accessed March 31, 2013).

19.

Suneja

Smith

Chen

. Waiting times to see a dermatologist are perceived as too long by dermatologists: Implications for the dermatology workforce. Arch Dermatol 2001;137:1303–7.

20.

Armstrong

Dorer

Lugn

. Economic evaluation of interactive teledermatology compared with conventional care. Telemed J E Health 2007;13:91–9, doi:10.1089/tmj.2006.0035.

21.

Norris

. Technology of telemedicine systems. Essentials of telemedicine and telecare. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2002. p. 39–59.

22.

Armstrong

Kwong

Chase

. Teledermatology operational considerations, challenges, and benefits: The referring providers' perspective. Telemed J E Health 2012;18:580–4, doi:10.1089/tmj.2011.0014.

23.

Armstrong

Kwong

Ledo

. Practice models and challenges in teledermatology: A study of collective experiences from teledermatologists. PLoS One 2011;6:e28687, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028687.

24.

Loane

Gore

Corbett

. Effect of camera performance on diagnostic accuracy: Preliminary results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial. J Telemed Telecare 1997;3:83–8, doi:10.1258/1357633971930913.