Patient-Centered, Direct-Access Online Care for Management of Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Allergy and Clinical Immunology | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Bystryn  JC.  Dermatology manpower needs.  Dermatol Clin. 2000;18(2):303-312, x.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Craiglow  BG, Resneck  JS  Jr, Lucky  AW,  et al.  Pediatric dermatology workforce shortage: perspectives from academia.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59(6):986-989.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Kimball  AB, Resneck  JS  Jr.  The US dermatology workforce: a specialty remains in shortage.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59(5):741-745.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Resneck  J  Jr, Kimball  AB.  The dermatology workforce shortage.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50(1):50-54.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Fieleke  DR, Edison  K, Dyer  JA.  Pediatric teledermatology: a survey of current use.  Pediatr Dermatol. 2008;25(2):158-162.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Edison  KE, Dyer  JA.  Teledermatology in Missouri and beyond.  Mo Med. 2007;104(2):139-143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
See  A, Lim  AC, Le  K, See  JA, Shumack  SP.  Operational teledermatology in Broken Hill, rural Australia.  Australas J Dermatol. 2005;46(3):144-149.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
McKenna  SP, Doward  LC.  Quality of life of children with atopic dermatitis and their families.  Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;8(3):228-231.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Collins  K, Walters  S, Bowns  I.  Patient satisfaction with teledermatology: quantitative and qualitative results from a randomized controlled trial.  J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(1):29-33.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Krupinski  E, Barker  G, Rodriguez  G,  et al.  Telemedicine versus in-person dermatology referrals: an analysis of case complexity.  Telemed J E Health. 2002;8(2):143-147.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Eminović  N, de Keizer  NF, Bindels  PJ, Hasman  A.  Maturity of teledermatology evaluation research: a systematic literature review.  Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(3):412-419.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Whited  JD.  Teledermatology research review.  Int J Dermatol. 2006;45(3):220-229.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Hsiao  JL, Oh  DH.  The impact of store-and-forward teledermatology on skin cancer diagnosis and treatment.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59(2):260-267.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Pak  H, Triplett  CA, Lindquist  JH, Grambow  SC, Whited  JD.  Store-and-forward teledermatology results in similar clinical outcomes to conventional clinic-based care.  J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(1):26-30.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Whited  JD, Warshaw  EM, Kapur  K,  et al.  Clinical course outcomes for store and forward teledermatology versus conventional consultation: a randomized trial.  J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(4):197-204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Whited  JD, Warshaw  EM, Edison  KE,  et al.  Effect of store and forward teledermatology on quality of life: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(5):584-591.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Weinstock  MA, Nguyen  FQ, Risica  PM.  Patient and referring provider satisfaction with teledermatology.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47(1):68-72.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Chambers  CJ, Parsi  KK, Schupp  C, Armstrong  AW.  Patient-centered online management of psoriasis: a randomized controlled equivalency trial.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66(6):948-953.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Parsi  K, Chambers  CJ, Armstrong  AW.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of a patient-centered care model for management of psoriasis.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66(4):563-570.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Watson  AJ, Bergman  H, Williams  CM, Kvedar  JC.  A randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of online follow-up visits in the management of acne.  Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(4):406-411.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Hanifin  JM.  Atopic dermatitis in infants and children.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 1991;38(4):763-789.PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Charman  CR, Venn  AJ, Williams  HC.  The patient-oriented eczema measure: development and initial validation of a new tool for measuring atopic eczema severity from the patients’ perspective.  Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(12):1513-1519.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Reitamo  S, Rustin  M, Harper  J,  et al; 0.1% Tacrolimus Ointment Long-term Follow-up Study Group.  A 4-year follow-up study of atopic dermatitis therapy with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment in children and adult patients.  Br J Dermatol. 2008;159(4):942-951.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Wollenberg  A, Reitamo  S, Girolomoni  G,  et al; European Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group.  Proactive treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment.  Allergy. 2008;63(7):742-750.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Sheinkopf  LE, Rafi  AW, Do  LT, Katz  RM, Klaustermeyer  WB.  Efficacy of omalizumab in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a pilot study.  Allergy Asthma Proc. 2008;29(5):530-537.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Mayser  P, Kupfer  J, Nemetz  D,  et al.  Treatment of head and neck dermatitis with ciclopiroxolamine cream: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.  Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2006;19(3):153-158.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Diggle  PJ, Heagerty  P, Liang  KY, Zeger  SL.  Analysis of Longitudinal Data.2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2002.
28.
Ramsay  DL, Weary  PE.  Primary care in dermatology: whose role should it be?  J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;35(6):1005-1008.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Federman  D, Hogan  D, Taylor  JR, Caralis  P, Kirsner  RS.  A comparison of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of patients with dermatologic disorders.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32(5, pt 1):726-729.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Fleischer  AB  Jr, Feldman  SR, Rapp  SR.  Introduction: the magnitude of skin disease in the United States.  Dermatol Clin. 2000;18(2):xv-xxi.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
February 2015

Patient-Centered, Direct-Access Online Care for Management of Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado, Denver, Denver
  • 2Department of Dermatology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento
JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(2):154-160. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.2299
Abstract

Importance  New models of health care delivery for dermatological care have the potential to increase access and improve patient-centered outcomes.

Objective  To compare effectiveness of a direct-access, online model for follow-up dermatologic care in pediatric and adult patients with atopic dermatitis with that of in-person office visits.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This was a 1-year, randomized controlled equivalency clinical trial in medically underserved areas, outpatient clinics, and the general community. Participants included children and adults with atopic dermatitis with access to the Internet, computers, and digital cameras.

Interventions  After an initial in-person visit, patients were randomized 1:1 to direct-access online or usual in-person care for follow-up management of atopic dermatitis. In the direct-access online group, patients captured and transmitted clinical images and history asynchronously to dermatologists online; dermatologists evaluated the clinical information, provided recommendations and education, and prescribed medications online asynchronously. In the in-person group, patients visited dermatologists in their offices for follow-up care.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Atopic dermatitis disease severity as assessed by patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) and investigator global assessment (IGA).

Results  A total of 156 children and adults were randomized. Between baseline and 12 months, the mean (SD) within-group difference in POEM score in patients in the direct-access online group was −5.1 (5.48) (95% CI, −6.32 to −3.88); in the in-person group, the within-group difference was −4.86 (4.87) (95% CI, −6.27 to −3.46). The difference in the change in POEM scores between the 2 groups was 0.24 (6.59) (90% CI, −1.70 to 1.23), which was contained within the predetermined 2.5 equivalence margin. The percentage of patients achieving clearance or near-clearance of their disease (IGA score of 0 or 1) was 38.4% (95% CI, 27.7% to 49.3%) in the direct-access online group and 43.6% (95% CI, 32.6%-54.6%) in the in-person group. The difference in the percent of patients achieving clearance or near-clearance between the 2 groups was 5.1% (90% CI, 1.7%-8.6%), which was contained within the predetermined 10% equivalence margin.

Conclusions and Relevance  The direct-access online model results in equivalent improvements in atopic dermatitis clinical outcomes as in-person care. Direct-access online care may represent an innovative model of delivering dermatological services to patients with chronic skin diseases.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00985894

×