Evaluation criteria for mobile Teledermatology applications and comparison of major mobile Teledermatology applications

Baran Ho, Michael Lee, April W. Armstrong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Mobile teledermatology applications have enabled increased patient access to dermatologic care. For groups interested in starting a mobile teledermatology program, selection of the appropriate application can be challenging. Having pretested evaluation criteria allows for efficient, systematic assessment of mobile teledermatology applications and identification of features important for comparison. The primary aim of this study is to determine a framework for evaluation of mobile teledermatology applications and to compare two major mobile teledermatology applications available in the United States using the proposed criteria. Materials and Methods: We incorporated previous teledermatology application evaluation criteria and developed new evaluation criteria to reflect matters specific to the mobile platform. Through a systematic search, we identified two publicly available mobile teledermatology applications in the United States and applied the evaluation criteria. Results: The 13-point evaluation criteria encompass three major domains: (1) technical specifications, (2) user experience and workflow, and (3) integration and scalability. The evaluation criteria provided an effective way of assessing the two mobile teledermatology applications. Both AccessDerm version 1.0 (Vignet Corp., McLean, VA) and ClickMedix version 1.3 (ClickMedix LLC, Rockville, MD) were capable of managing consultations. These applications adopted different approaches to balancing image quality versus data transmission, managing follow-up patients, and enabling dialogue between providers. Conclusions: Mobile teledermatology provides convenient and scalable means of providing specialty care. The creation of mobile application evaluation criteria offers a useful guide for assessing future mobile applications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)678-682
Number of pages5
JournalTelemedicine and e-Health
Volume19
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2013

Fingerprint

Mobile Applications
Workflow
Referral and Consultation

Keywords

  • commercial telemedicine
  • e-health
  • technology
  • telecommunications
  • teledermatology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Health Informatics
  • Health Information Management

Cite this

Evaluation criteria for mobile Teledermatology applications and comparison of major mobile Teledermatology applications. / Ho, Baran; Lee, Michael; Armstrong, April W.

In: Telemedicine and e-Health, Vol. 19, No. 9, 01.09.2013, p. 678-682.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{df76cdb014fd4a32adeb4dc1f5e0fc4c,
title = "Evaluation criteria for mobile Teledermatology applications and comparison of major mobile Teledermatology applications",
abstract = "Background: Mobile teledermatology applications have enabled increased patient access to dermatologic care. For groups interested in starting a mobile teledermatology program, selection of the appropriate application can be challenging. Having pretested evaluation criteria allows for efficient, systematic assessment of mobile teledermatology applications and identification of features important for comparison. The primary aim of this study is to determine a framework for evaluation of mobile teledermatology applications and to compare two major mobile teledermatology applications available in the United States using the proposed criteria. Materials and Methods: We incorporated previous teledermatology application evaluation criteria and developed new evaluation criteria to reflect matters specific to the mobile platform. Through a systematic search, we identified two publicly available mobile teledermatology applications in the United States and applied the evaluation criteria. Results: The 13-point evaluation criteria encompass three major domains: (1) technical specifications, (2) user experience and workflow, and (3) integration and scalability. The evaluation criteria provided an effective way of assessing the two mobile teledermatology applications. Both AccessDerm version 1.0 (Vignet Corp., McLean, VA) and ClickMedix version 1.3 (ClickMedix LLC, Rockville, MD) were capable of managing consultations. These applications adopted different approaches to balancing image quality versus data transmission, managing follow-up patients, and enabling dialogue between providers. Conclusions: Mobile teledermatology provides convenient and scalable means of providing specialty care. The creation of mobile application evaluation criteria offers a useful guide for assessing future mobile applications.",
keywords = "commercial telemedicine, e-health, technology, telecommunications, teledermatology",
author = "Baran Ho and Michael Lee and Armstrong, {April W.}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/tmj.2012.0234",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "678--682",
journal = "Telemedicine and e-Health",
issn = "1530-5627",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation criteria for mobile Teledermatology applications and comparison of major mobile Teledermatology applications

AU - Ho, Baran

AU - Lee, Michael

AU - Armstrong, April W.

PY - 2013/9/1

Y1 - 2013/9/1

N2 - Background: Mobile teledermatology applications have enabled increased patient access to dermatologic care. For groups interested in starting a mobile teledermatology program, selection of the appropriate application can be challenging. Having pretested evaluation criteria allows for efficient, systematic assessment of mobile teledermatology applications and identification of features important for comparison. The primary aim of this study is to determine a framework for evaluation of mobile teledermatology applications and to compare two major mobile teledermatology applications available in the United States using the proposed criteria. Materials and Methods: We incorporated previous teledermatology application evaluation criteria and developed new evaluation criteria to reflect matters specific to the mobile platform. Through a systematic search, we identified two publicly available mobile teledermatology applications in the United States and applied the evaluation criteria. Results: The 13-point evaluation criteria encompass three major domains: (1) technical specifications, (2) user experience and workflow, and (3) integration and scalability. The evaluation criteria provided an effective way of assessing the two mobile teledermatology applications. Both AccessDerm version 1.0 (Vignet Corp., McLean, VA) and ClickMedix version 1.3 (ClickMedix LLC, Rockville, MD) were capable of managing consultations. These applications adopted different approaches to balancing image quality versus data transmission, managing follow-up patients, and enabling dialogue between providers. Conclusions: Mobile teledermatology provides convenient and scalable means of providing specialty care. The creation of mobile application evaluation criteria offers a useful guide for assessing future mobile applications.

AB - Background: Mobile teledermatology applications have enabled increased patient access to dermatologic care. For groups interested in starting a mobile teledermatology program, selection of the appropriate application can be challenging. Having pretested evaluation criteria allows for efficient, systematic assessment of mobile teledermatology applications and identification of features important for comparison. The primary aim of this study is to determine a framework for evaluation of mobile teledermatology applications and to compare two major mobile teledermatology applications available in the United States using the proposed criteria. Materials and Methods: We incorporated previous teledermatology application evaluation criteria and developed new evaluation criteria to reflect matters specific to the mobile platform. Through a systematic search, we identified two publicly available mobile teledermatology applications in the United States and applied the evaluation criteria. Results: The 13-point evaluation criteria encompass three major domains: (1) technical specifications, (2) user experience and workflow, and (3) integration and scalability. The evaluation criteria provided an effective way of assessing the two mobile teledermatology applications. Both AccessDerm version 1.0 (Vignet Corp., McLean, VA) and ClickMedix version 1.3 (ClickMedix LLC, Rockville, MD) were capable of managing consultations. These applications adopted different approaches to balancing image quality versus data transmission, managing follow-up patients, and enabling dialogue between providers. Conclusions: Mobile teledermatology provides convenient and scalable means of providing specialty care. The creation of mobile application evaluation criteria offers a useful guide for assessing future mobile applications.

KW - commercial telemedicine

KW - e-health

KW - technology

KW - telecommunications

KW - teledermatology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883772073&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883772073&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/tmj.2012.0234

DO - 10.1089/tmj.2012.0234

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 678

EP - 682

JO - Telemedicine and e-Health

JF - Telemedicine and e-Health

SN - 1530-5627

IS - 9

ER -