↓ Skip to main content

Effect of a Skin Self-monitoring Smartphone Application on Time to Physician Consultation Among Patients With Possible Melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Network Open, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of a Skin Self-monitoring Smartphone Application on Time to Physician Consultation Among Patients With Possible Melanoma
Published in
JAMA Network Open, February 2020
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona M. Walter, Merel M. Pannebakker, Matthew E. Barclay, Katie Mills, Catherine L. Saunders, Peter Murchie, Pippa Corrie, Per Hall, Nigel Burrows, Jon D. Emery

Abstract

Melanoma is among the most lethal skin cancers; it has become the fifth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, and incidence rates are rising. Population approaches to reducing incidence have focused on mass media campaigns to promote earlier presentation and potentially improve melanoma outcomes; however, interventions using smartphone applications targeting those with the greatest risk could promote earlier presentation to health care professionals for individuals with new or changing skin lesions. To study the effect of a commercially available skin self-monitoring (SSM) smartphone application among individuals with increased risk of melanoma on their decision to seek help for changing skin lesions. This phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted in 12 family practices in Eastern England between 2016 and 2017. A total of 238 participants, aged 18 to 75 years and with an increased risk of melanoma, were identified using a real-time melanoma risk assessment tool in family practice waiting rooms. Analysis was intention to treat. Participants were observed for 12 months, and data analysis was conducted from January to August 2018. The intervention and control groups received a consultation with standard written advice on sun protection and skin cancer detection. The intervention group had an SSM application loaded on their smartphone and received instructions for use and monthly self-monitoring reminders. The coprimary outcomes were skin consultation rates with family practice physicians and patient intervals, measured as the time between noticing a skin change and consulting with a family practice clinician. Follow-up questionnaires were sent at 6 and 12 months, and consultation rates were extracted from family practice records. Secondary outcomes included skin self-examination benefits and barriers, self-efficacy for consulting without delay, perceived melanoma risk, sun protection habits, and potential harms. A total of 238 patients were randomized (median [interquartile range] age, 55 [43-65] years, 131 [55.0%] women, 227 [95.4%] white British; 119 [50.0%] randomized to the intervention group). Overall, 51 participants (21.4%) had consultations regarding skin changes during the 12 months of follow-up, and 157 participants (66.0%) responded to at least 1 follow-up questionnaire. There were no significant differences in skin consultation rates (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.66; P = .89), measures of SSM (adjusted mean difference, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.83 to 1.00; P = .86), or psychological harm (eg, Melanoma Worry Scale: adjusted mean difference, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.31; P = .58). In this study, recruitment, retention, and initial delivery of the intervention were feasible, and this research provided no evidence of harm from the SSM smartphone application. However, no evidence of benefit on skin self-examination or health care consulting was found, and there is no reason at this stage to recommend its implementation in this population at increased risk of melanoma. isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16061621.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 7 5%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 64 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 14%
Psychology 10 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 68 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,428,490
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#4,481
of 7,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,699
of 360,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#175
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 126.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.