Attitudes of dermatological patients towards digital health interventions: a cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis

IF 5 4区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Patrick Reinders, Matthias Augustin, Marina Otten
{"title":"Attitudes of dermatological patients towards digital health interventions: a cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis","authors":"Patrick Reinders,&nbsp;Matthias Augustin,&nbsp;Marina Otten","doi":"10.1111/ddg.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to assess the acceptance of Germany's adoption of digital health interventions (DHI) among dermatology patientsand to identify patient clusters.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A cross-sectional, quantitative survey on acceptability and (future) usage of DHIs was conducted among patients with chronic dermatological conditions. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) identified key constructs and patients were grouped using a two-step clustering approach.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The EFA was conducted using data from 344 patients (mean age 52.5 years, SD 14.8; 74.0 % female) and identified four factors: “Acceptability of DHIs and Trust,” “Patients’ Digital Health Competencies,” “Digital Health Insecurities,” and “Positive Impact of DHIs.” Cluster analysis resulted in four groups: “Digital Sceptics” (n = 49, 15.6 %), “Cautious Adopters” (n = 106, 33.7 %), “Digital Enthusiasts” (n = 98, 31.1 %), “Adopters Unsure About Impact” (n = 62, 18.0 %). “Digital Enthusiasts” were significantly younger. Usage and acceptability varied among clusters, with “Digital Enthusiasts” and “Adopters Unsure About Impact” showing the highest rates. Overall, few patients used DHIs, including store-and-forward teledermatology (2.0 %–7.0 %) or electronic patient records (6.4 %–19.4 %).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Patient clusters with varying attitudes towards DHIs were identified. Despite a general willingness to adopt DHIs, actual usage remains low. Systemic barriers such as availability and digital competencies need to be addressed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14758,"journal":{"name":"Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft","volume":"24 9","pages":"e1264-e1274"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ddg.70010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddg.70010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to assess the acceptance of Germany's adoption of digital health interventions (DHI) among dermatology patientsand to identify patient clusters.

Patients and Methods

A cross-sectional, quantitative survey on acceptability and (future) usage of DHIs was conducted among patients with chronic dermatological conditions. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) identified key constructs and patients were grouped using a two-step clustering approach.

Results

The EFA was conducted using data from 344 patients (mean age 52.5 years, SD 14.8; 74.0 % female) and identified four factors: “Acceptability of DHIs and Trust,” “Patients’ Digital Health Competencies,” “Digital Health Insecurities,” and “Positive Impact of DHIs.” Cluster analysis resulted in four groups: “Digital Sceptics” (n = 49, 15.6 %), “Cautious Adopters” (n = 106, 33.7 %), “Digital Enthusiasts” (n = 98, 31.1 %), “Adopters Unsure About Impact” (n = 62, 18.0 %). “Digital Enthusiasts” were significantly younger. Usage and acceptability varied among clusters, with “Digital Enthusiasts” and “Adopters Unsure About Impact” showing the highest rates. Overall, few patients used DHIs, including store-and-forward teledermatology (2.0 %–7.0 %) or electronic patient records (6.4 %–19.4 %).

Conclusions

Patient clusters with varying attitudes towards DHIs were identified. Despite a general willingness to adopt DHIs, actual usage remains low. Systemic barriers such as availability and digital competencies need to be addressed.

皮肤科患者对数字健康干预的态度:横断面调查和聚类分析。
背景:本研究旨在评估德国皮肤科患者对数字健康干预(DHI)的接受程度,并确定患者群。患者和方法:对慢性皮肤病患者的可接受性和(未来)使用DHIs进行了横断面定量调查。探索性因素分析(EFA)确定了关键结构,并采用两步聚类方法对患者进行分组。结果:EFA使用来自344名患者(平均年龄52.5岁,SD 14.8,女性占74%)的数据进行,并确定了四个因素:“DHIs的可接受性和信任”、“患者的数字健康能力”、“数字健康不安全感”和“DHIs的积极影响”。聚类分析得出四组:“数字怀疑论者”(n = 49, 15.6%),“谨慎采用者”(n = 106, 33.7%),“数字爱好者”(n = 98, 31.1%),“采用者不确定影响”(n = 62, 18.0%)。“数码发烧友”明显更年轻。使用和接受度在不同的集群中有所不同,“数字爱好者”和“不确定影响的采用者”的比例最高。总体而言,很少有患者使用DHIs,包括存储转发远程皮肤科(2.0% - 7.0%)或电子病历(6.4% - 19.4%)。结论:确定了对DHIs持不同态度的患者群。尽管人们普遍愿意采用DHIs,但实际使用率仍然很低。需要解决可用性和数字能力等系统性障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
25.00%
发文量
406
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The JDDG publishes scientific papers from a wide range of disciplines, such as dermatovenereology, allergology, phlebology, dermatosurgery, dermatooncology, and dermatohistopathology. Also in JDDG: information on medical training, continuing education, a calendar of events, book reviews and society announcements. Papers can be submitted in German or English language. In the print version, all articles are published in German. In the online version, all key articles are published in English.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书