June 18, 2014
3 min read
Save

Teledermatology potentially feasible for patients with HIV in remote areas

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania suggest that mobile technology to practice teledermatology is feasible for patients with HIV in Botswana.

Perspective from Jeremy Young, MD, MPH

“In many parts of the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, there is a severe shortage of dermatologic specialists,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Dermatology. “In these regions, this shortage is felt more acutely in communities with high rates of HIV, since there is an increased burden of both prevalence and severity of skin and mucosal disease in this group. Although the introduction of mobile teledermatology … has significant theoretical potential for improving access to care, much work is needed to optimize and validate the use of this technology on a larger scale in this population.”

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study that included 76 HIV-positive patients with a skin or mucosal condition. All of the patients received a face-to-face clinical evaluation with a US-based dermatologist. Afterward, the patients participated in a cellular phone encounter with a nurse who collected their information, including photographs, and uploaded the information to a teledermatology evaluation website. Then, three US-based dermatologists and one oral medicine specialist made evaluations from that information.

The face-to-face evaluator made 159 diagnoses among the patients, whereas the remote evaluators made varying numbers of diagnoses ranging from 154 to 313. Several months after the initial evaluations, the researchers had the mobile evaluators review the cases again. The kappa coefficients for the evaluators for test-retest reliability were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.35-0.59), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.63-0.83) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.88) for primary diagnosis and 0.17 (95% CI, –0.01 to 0.36), 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.64) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38-0.7) for management choices.

The kappa coefficients for reliability between face-to-face dermatology and the remote reviewers were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.52) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.41-0.61) for agreement in diagnosis and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.15) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.01-0.23) for agreement in management.

Disclosure: One researcher reports relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Celgene, Centocor, Novartis and Pfizer.