Patient perception and satisfaction with a smartphone-based teledermatology service initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary care hospital in North India.

Background Telemedicine is being increasingly used to provide healthcare to patients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aims The study aimed to study patient perception and satisfaction with a smartphone-based hybrid teledermatology service initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This was a cross-sectional telephonic survey including patients ≥18 years of age who had received a teledermatology consultation. After noting the demographic, clinical and teleconsultation details, patients were administered the Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire and an additional 6-item questionnaire. Patients were also asked to give qualitative feedback and suggestions for improvement using a semi-structured interview guide. Results We interviewed 201 subjects. The most common diagnoses were pemphigus (27, 13.4%), superficial fungal infections (24, 11.8%), psoriasis (22, 10.9%) and dermatitis (21, 10.4%). The overall mean Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire score was 4.20± 0.71. One hundred seventy-one (85.1%) patients responded that they would use teledermatology services again, while 168 (83.6%) reported satisfaction with the quality of services. A majority of the patients were largely satisfied with the various components involved, though some concerns were raised about the care perceived as not at par with physical consultations, difficulty in procuring medicines, lack of confidence in photographic diagnoses and the lack of a personal touch. Patients with urticaria (P=0.020), those who were advised a change in treatment (P=0.029) and those with improvement in their skin disease (P=0.026) were more likely to be satisfied. Limitations Our study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic when patient acceptability was likely to be higher. Only follow-up patients were included in the study. Conclusion Patient satisfaction levels were generally high with teledermatology. Addressing lacunae that negatively impact patient perception and satisfaction will help in greater acceptance of teledermatology services.

Validation of a cross-NTD toolkit for assessment of NTD-related morbidity and disability. A cross-cultural qualitative validation of study instruments in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Many neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are not fatal, but they are disabling, disfiguring and stigmatizing. More accurate data on these aspects would benefit planning, monitoring and evaluation of interventions, as well as provision of appropriate services for the often life-long consequences. In 2015, a cross-NTD toolkit was developed, consisting of a variety of existing questionnaires to measure morbidity, disability and health-related quality of life. The toolkit covers the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. These tools have been developed in a source country, however, it was intended for the cross-NTD toolkit to be applicable across NTDs in many countries with different cultures and languages in order to generate universally comparative data. Therefore; the present study aimed to validate several tools of the toolkit among people affected by leprosy or leishmaniasis in the cultural settings of Cartagena and Cúcuta, Colombia. METHODOLOGY: This study aimed to validate the following tools among 55 participants between 18-85 years old, affected by leprosy and leishmaniasis: (I) Clinical Profile, (II) Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ), (III) WHO Quality of Life assessment-abbreviated version (WHOQOL-BREF), and (IV) WHO Quality of Life assessment-Disability (WHOQOL-DIS). The tools were administered during face-to-face interviews and were followed by open questions about the respondents' thoughts on format of the tool and the understanding, relevance and acceptability of the items. The tools were validated using a qualitative method approach based on the framework for cultural equivalence, measured by the cultural, item, semantic and operational equivalences. RESULTS: The Clinical Profile was seen as acceptable and relevant, only the semantic equivalence was not as satisfying and needs a few adaptations. The SRQ was very well understood and shows to reach the equivalences for the population of Colombia without any additional changes. Several items of the WHOQOL-BREF and the WHOQOL-DIS were not well understood and changes are recommended due to semantic difficulties. Operational equivalence of both questionnaires was not as desired in relation to the used response scales. The participants shared that the tools are relevant and important for their particular situation. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The SRQ is found to be a valid tool for Colombia and can be included in the cross-NTD toolkit. The Clinical Profile, WHOQOL-BREF & WHOQOL-DIS need changes and retesting among Colombian people affected by an NTD. The toolkit as a whole is seen as useful to show the effects leprosy and leishmaniasis have on the participants. This cultural validation will contribute to a universally applicable cross-NTD toolkit.