Views on mobile health apps for skin cancer screening in the general population: an in-depth qualitative exploration of perceived barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) incorporating artificial intelligence for skin cancer screening are increasingly reimbursed by health insurers. However, an in-depth exploration of the general public's views towards these apps is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators towards mHealth apps for skin cancer screening among the Dutch general population. METHODS: A qualitative study consisting of four focus groups with 27 participants was conducted. A two-stage purposive sampling method was used to include information-rich participants from the Dutch general population with varying experience of mHealth. A topic guide was used to structure the sessions. All focus group meetings were transcribed verbatim and analysed in thematic content analysis by two researchers using several coding phases, resulting in an overview of themes and subthemes, categorized as (sub-)barriers and (sub)facilitators. RESULTS: Main barriers to using mHealth apps included a perceived lack of value, perception of untrustworthiness, preference for a doctor, privacy concerns, a complex user interface, and high costs. The main factors facilitating the use of mHealth among the general population were a high perceived value, a transparent and trustworthy identity of app developers, endorsement by healthcare providers and government regulating bodies, and ease and low costs of use. CONCLUSIONS: To increase successful adoption in skin cancer screening apps, developers should create a transparent identity and build trustworthy apps. Collaboration between app developers, general practitioners and dermatologists is advocated to improve mHealth integration with skin cancer care. Special attention should be given to the development of low-cost, privacy-friendly, easy-to-use apps.

Substitution of low-risk skin cancer hospital care towards primary care: A qualitative study on views of general practitioners and dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Rising healthcare expenditures places the potential for substitution of hospital care towards primary care high on the political agenda. As low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) care is one of the potential targets for substitution of hospital care towards primary care the objective of this study is to gain insight in the views of healthcare professionals regarding substitution of skin cancer care, and to identify perceived barriers and potential strategies to facilitate substitution. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of 40 interviews with dermatologists and GPs and three focus groups with 18 selected GPs with noted willingness regarding substitution of skin cancer care. The interviews and focus groups focused on general views, perceived barriers and potential strategies to facilitate substitution of skin cancer care, using predefined topic lists. All sessions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the program AtlasTi. RESULTS: GPs were generally positive regarding substitution of skin care whereas dermatologists expressed more concerns. Lack of trust in GPs to adequately perform skin cancer care and a preference of patients for dermatologists are reported as barriers by dermatologists. The main barriers reported by GPs were a lack of confidence in own skills to perform skin cancer care, a lack of trust from both patients and dermatologists and limited time and financial compensation. Facilitating strategies suggested by both groups mainly focused on improving GPs' education and improving the collaboration between primary and secondary care. GPs additionally suggested efforts from dermatologists to increase their own and patients' trust in GPs, and time and financial compensation. The selected group of GPs suggested practical solutions to facilitate substitution focusing on changes in organizational structure including horizontal referring, outreach models and practice size reduction. CONCLUSIONS: GPs and, to lesser extent, dermatologists are positive regarding substitution of low-risk BCC care, though report substantial barriers that need to be addressed before substitution can be further implemented. Aside from essential strategies such as improving GPs' skin cancer education and time and financial compensation, rearranging the organizational structure in primary care and between primary and secondary care may facilitate effective and safe substitution of low-risk BCC care.

Insight into the management of actinic keratosis: a qualitative interview study among general practitioners and dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence of actinic keratosis (AK) is causing a large burden on healthcare systems. The current management of patients with AK seems to vary within and between primary and secondary care; however, an in-depth understanding of healthcare providers' management of AK is currently lacking. OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into the management of AK by exploring the underlying motives of current practices among general practitioners (GPs) and dermatologists in the Netherlands. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of semistructured individual interviews with 22 GPs and 18 dermatologists focusing on the underlying motives regarding AK management. A predefined topic list was used. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed by two researchers drawing on elements of grounded theory. RESULTS: GPs reported conducting limited proactive clinical assessments of cutaneous photodamage due to a perceived lack of value, varying in their method of diagnosing AK. They mainly applied cryotherapy or referred to secondary care due to lack of experience, varying in their applications and providing mostly patient-driven follow-up care. They also reported a great need for guidelines due to a lack of knowledge of AK management. Dermatologists indicated pursuing proactive clinical assessments of cutaneous photodamage and the goal of providing guideline-driven AK care. However, patient preferences still largely influence both treatment choices and follow-up regimens. Furthermore, dermatologists reported the need to improve AK and skin cancer management in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: For AK care to become more standardized and uniform in Dutch primary care, the implementation of guidelines and (continuing) education are needed to address the commonly reported barriers of lack of value, experience and knowledge among GPs. For efficient use of care among dermatologists, shared decision-making tools along with adequate (framing of) patient information may be useful.

Healthcare utilization and management of actinic keratosis in primary and secondary care: a complementary database analysis.

BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of actinic keratosis (AK) requires the optimal use of healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES: To gain insight in to the healthcare utilization of people with AK in a population-based cohort, and the management of AK in a primary and secondary care setting. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using three complementary data sources was conducted to describe the use of care, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with AK in the Netherlands. Data sources consisted of a population-based cohort study (Rotterdam Study), routine general practitioner (GP) records (Integrated Primary Care Information) and nationwide claims data (DRG Information System). RESULTS: In the population-based cohort (Rotterdam Study), 69% (918 of 1322) of participants diagnosed with AK during a skin-screening visit had no previous AK-related visit in their GP record. This proportion was 50% for participants with extensive AK (i.e. ≥ 10 AKs; n = 270). Cryotherapy was the most used AK treatment by both GPs (78%) and dermatologists (41-56%). Topical agents were the second most used treatment by dermatologists (13-21%) but were rarely applied in primary care (2%). During the first AK-related GP visit, 31% (171 of 554) were referred to a dermatologist, and the likelihood of being referred was comparable between low- and high-risk patients, which is inconsistent with the Dutch general practitioner guidelines for 'suspicious skin lesions' from 2017. Annually, 40 000 new claims representing 13% of all dermatology claims were labelled as cutaneous premalignancy. Extensive follow-up rates (56%) in secondary care were registered, while only 18% received a claim for a subsequent cutaneous malignancy in 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: AK management seems to diverge from guidelines in both primary and secondary care. Underutilization of field treatments, inappropriate treatments and high referral rates without proper risk stratification in primary care, combined with extensive follow-up in secondary care result in the inefficient use of healthcare resources and overburdening in secondary care. Efforts directed to better risk differentiation and guideline adherence may prove useful in increasing the efficiency in AK management. What's already known about this topic? The prevalence of actinic keratosis (AK) is high and, in particular, multiple AKs are a strong skin cancer predictor. The high prevalence of AK requires optimal use of healthcare resources. Nevertheless, (population based) AK healthcare utilization and management data are very rare. What does this study add? Although AK-related care already consumes substantial resources, about 70% of the AK population has never received care. Primary care AK management demonstrated underutilization of topical therapies and high referral rates without proper risk stratification, while in secondary care the extensive follow-up schedules were applied. This inefficient use of healthcare resources highlights the need for better harmonization and risk stratification to increase the efficiency of AK care.

Factors influencing current low-value follow-up care after basal cell carcinoma and suggested strategies for de-adoption: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Providing follow-up to patients with low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) can be considered as low-value care. However, dermatologists still provide substantial follow-up care to this patient group, for reasons not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors influencing current BCC follow-up practices among dermatologists and suggested strategies to de-adopt this low-value care. In addition, views of patients regarding follow-up care were explored. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of 18 semistructured interviews with dermatologists and three focus groups with a total of 17 patients with low-risk BCC who had received dermatological care. The interviews focused on current follow-up practices, influencing factors and suggested strategies to de-adopt the follow-up care. The focus groups discussed preferred follow-up schedules and providers, as well as the content of follow-up. All (group) interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by two researchers using ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: Factors influencing current follow-up care practices among dermatologists included complying with patients' preferences, lack of trust in general practitioners (GPs), financial incentives and force of habit. Patients reported varying needs regarding periodic follow-up visits, preferred to be seen by a dermatologist and indicated a need for improved information provision. Suggested strategies by dermatologists to de-adopt the low-value care encompassed educating patients with improved information, educating GPs to increase trust of dermatologists, realizing appropriate financial reimbursement and informing dermatologists about the low value of care. CONCLUSIONS: A mixture of factors appear to contribute to current follow-up practices after low-risk BCC. In order to de-adopt this low-value care, strategies should be aimed at dermatologists and GPs, and also patients.

Needs and preferences of patients regarding basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma care: a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high and rising incidence rate of keratinocyte cancer (KC) and the importance of incorporating patient values into evidence-based care, few studies have focused on the perspectives of patients with KC. OBJECTIVES: To identify the needs and preferences of patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) regarding care. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of three focus groups with patients with BCC and three focus groups with patients with SCC. In total 42 patients participated. In each focus group, the patients' needs and preferences regarding treatment and follow-up were discussed, using a predefined topic list. All sessions were transcribed verbatim and analysed by two researchers. RESULTS: The following needs and preferences were identified: (i) the need to receive all relevant, tailored information; (ii) a physician who takes you seriously and communicates well; (iii) a short waiting period and the best treatment with direct results; (iv) to be seen by the same physician; a preference for a dermatologist during (v) treatment and (vi) follow-up; (vii) a general need for structured follow-up care and (viii) a full-body skin examination during follow-up. Patients with BCC additionally expressed the need for openness and transparency and wanting to participate in shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS: It is advocated to organize skin cancer care that is better tailored to the needs of patients with KC, providing patient-centred care. This should include investing in the patient-physician relationship, and personalizing the type and form of information and the follow-up schedules. Adding the patient's perspective to current guidelines could facilitate this process.

Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical guidelines aim to improve the quality of care. In The Netherlands, considerable time and effort have been invested in the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines since the 1990s. Thus far, no reviews are available on their effectiveness. The primary aim of this article was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines in improving the quality of care. METHODS: A systematic review of studies evaluating the effects of Dutch evidence-based guidelines on both the process and structure of care and patient outcomes was conducted. The electronic databases Medline and Embase (1990-2007) and relevant scientific journals were searched. Studies were only selected if they included a controlled trial, an interrupted time series design or a before and after design. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included. In 17 of 19 studies that measured the effects on the process or structure of care, significant improvements were reported. Thirteen of these studies reported improvement with respect to some of the recommendations studied. In addition, the size of the observed effects varied largely across the recommendations within guidelines. Six of nine studies that measured patient health outcomes showed significant but small improvements as a result of the use of clinical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that Dutch evidence-based clinical guidelines can be effective in improving the process and structure of care. The effects of guidelines on patient health outcomes were studied far less and data are less convincing. The high level of variation in effects across recommendations suggests that implementation strategies tailored to individual recommendations within the guideline are needed to establish relevant improvements in healthcare. Moreover, the results highlight the need for well-designed studies focusing on the level of the recommendations to determine which factors influence guideline utilisation and improved patient outcomes.

Knowledge, attitudes and use of the guidelines for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis among Dutch dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: In 2003, the Dutch psoriasis guidelines were among the first evidence-based medicine guidelines in dermatology. Although pivotal, the implementation of dermatological guidelines has not been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate various aspects that affect implementation of clinical guidelines such as knowledge, attitudes and practices among dermatologists. METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous postal survey was conducted among all Dutch dermatologists. In addition to questions about knowledge and practices, 24 items assessed guidelines attitudes. Factor analysis was applied to merge these items into attitudinal scales and multiple linear regression was used to identify predictors for these scales. RESULTS: Of the 353 dermatologists, 161 (46%) completed the questionnaire. Almost all respondents were aware of the guidelines and 60% reported to have a decent knowledge of their content. Factor analysis retained 22 items divided into three scales: usefulness and content, barriers, and reliability. Apart from some disagreement on the user-friendliness and communication facilitating properties, the dermatologists' attitudes were generally positive. A larger volume of patients with psoriasis was associated with more frequent use of the guidelines [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-5.72]. Good familiarity predicted a more positive attitude towards the guidelines' usefulness and content (P < 0.001), perceived barriers (P < 0.001), and more frequent use in practice (adjusted OR = 8.38; 95% CI 3.08-22.81). CONCLUSIONS: Dutch dermatologists seem to know and appreciate their psoriasis guidelines and use them more often when they have a larger psoriasis population. Enhancing the familiarity of the guidelines among users may result in a more positive attitude towards them and a higher frequency of use.