Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 12;9(4):353–361. doi: 10.1007/s13671-020-00323-0

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies

First author (year) Front-end user of teledermatology Telehealth practice format Reported use of implementation theory? Country Number of teleconsults Number and type of survey participants Number of study quality indices with risk of bias
Armstrong (2010) [36] Healthcare provider SAF No USA NA 8 dermatologists; interview 2
van der Heijden (2014) [37] Healthcare provider SAF No Netherlands 85 13 dermatologists; questionnaire and interview 4
van der Heijden (2010) [38] Healthcare provider SAF No Netherlands 28 20 dermatologists; questionnaire 2
Kips (2019) [39] Healthcare provider SAF No Belgium 54 15 mixed (12 primary care providers; 3 dermatologists); questionnaire 3
Delaigue (2014) [40] Healthcare provider SAF No 24 different countries Not reported 22 mixed (13 dermatologists and 9 non-dermatologist healthcare providers); questionnaire 3
Lasierra (2012) [41] Healthcare provider SAF No Spain 17 14 mixed (13 primary care providers, 1 dermatologist); questionnaire 3
Orruño (2011) [42] Healthcare provider SAF Yesa Spain 254 161 mixed (16 dermatologists, 126 family medicine physicians, 19 pediatricians); questionnaire 2
Janda (2019) [43] Healthcare provider SAF Yesa Australia (85%), Europe (7%) Not reported 52 mixed (16 primary care providers, 22 dermatologists, 14 dermatologist registrars); survey 1
Ford (2019) [44] Healthcare provider SAF No USA Not reported 29 mixed (17 patients, 8 primary care providers and 4 dermatologists); interview 2
Manahan (2011) [45] Healthcare provider SAF No Australia 2 21 mixed (19 pharmacists, 2 patients); questionnaire 2
Kaliyadan (2013) [46] Healthcare provider SAF No Saudi Arabia 166 25 mixed (23 patients, 2 dermatologists); questionnaire 3
Ludwick (2010) [47] Healthcare provider SAF No Canada 28 10 mixed (9 physicians, 1 dermatologist); interview 2
von Wangenheim (2019) [48] Healthcare provider SAF No Brazil 83,100 NA; NA Retrospective chart review, not assessed
Nakayama (2012) [49] Healthcare provider SAF No Japan 36 23 pathologists; questionnaire 4
Spinks (2016) [50] Healthcare provider SAF No Australia Not reported 35 patients; direct choice experiment 3
Armstrong (2012) [51] Healthcare provider SAF and LI No USA 2760 10 primary care providers; interview 1
Barbieri (2015) [52] Healthcare provider Not reported No USA Not reported 18 primary care providers; survey 3
O’Toole (2017) [53] Healthcare provider SAF No Canada 965 217 primary care providers; survey 3
Costello (2019) [3] Healthcare provider SAF No USA 38 unknown number of primary care providers; survey 3
Eber (2019) [54] Mix (healthcare provider and patient) Not reported No Austria Not reported 243 dermatologists; questionnaire 2
Ariens (2017) [55] Patients SAF and LI No Netherlands Not reported 39 dermatologists; survey 2
Wu (2015) [56] Patients SAF No USA Not reported 31 mixed (2 dermatologists, 29 patients); survey 4
Fiks (2018) [57] Patients SAF No USA Not reported 135 patients; survey 3
Kong (2020) [58] Patients SAF No Australia Not reported 28 patients; interview 3
Pathipati (2016) [59] Patients SAF No USA 38 38 patients; interview 4
Horsham (2016) [60] Patients SAF Yesa Australia 49 49 patients; survey 2
Al Quran (2015) [61] Patients LI No Jordan 90 88 patients; interview 2
Armstrong (2011) [62] Unclear SAF and LI No USA Not reported 17 dermatologists; interview 2
Walters (2018) [63] Unclear Not reported No South Africa NA NA; NA 2
Romero (2018) [64] Unclear SAF and LI No Spain Not reported Not reported (providers drawn from 42 dermatology centers); NA 2

SAF store and forward, LI live interactive

aTechnology acceptance model