[Statutory skin cancer screening in Germany : Motivation and motives for participation versus nonparticipation]. / Gesetzliches Hautkrebsscreening in Deutschland : Motivation und Motive zur Teilnahme versus Nichtteilnahme.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, statutory skin cancer screening (sSCS) was introduced in Germany for people aged ≥ 35 years with statutory health insurance (SHI). The aim is to diagnose malignant skin lesions at an early stage, reduce mortality and improve morbidity and quality of life. Although sSCS was introduced more than a decade ago, only a part of the public is aware of it. OBJECTIVES: What are the reasons for the low participation rate in sSCS in the eligible population? MATERIALS AND METHODS: In computer-assisted phone interviews with a representative population sample of N = 1015 persons aged ≥ 18 years with SHI attitude towards skin cancer, rate of use of sSCS and reasons for nonparticipation were surveyed in January 2019. Parts of the data were compared with previous surveys from 2011, 2013 and 2015. RESULTS: Among the 1015 participants 40% were concerned about skin cancer (2011: 45%; 2013: 51%; 2015: 46%). Of the respondents 75.4% were authorised to use sSCS. Of these 52.6% had never participated in sSCS before. However, participation increased with age. Further, the nonparticipation rate for those with a high school-leaving certificate (45%) was significantly lower than for those with a lower schooling level (58%). The option for sSCS was unknown to 35% of nonparticipants. As a reason for nonparticipation 20% mentioned a lack of time, while 58% saw no need for it because they felt healthy. In general, 91% of all respondents considered early preventive examinations to be useful and 66% had already taken part in other preventive examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The low participation rate of about 50% in sSCS and the decreasing concern about skin cancer suggest that further education of the general population about the relevance of skin cancer with a focus on risk groups is necessary.

Costs of routine skin cancer screening in Germany: a claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, a routine skin cancer screening (rSCS) programme was implemented in Germany. Since then, its medical and economical effects have been evaluated and critically discussed. AIM: To compare costs for patients diagnosed with skin cancer with preceding rSCS vs. those diagnosed without rSCS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using claims data from a large German health insurance company for the period 2013-2016. We applied entropy balancing, difference-in-differences estimation and generalized linear models to compare costs for patients with cancer with and without rSCS. We conducted sensitivity analyses to test for the robustness of results. RESULTS: In total, 12 790 patients with skin cancer were included in the analyses, of whom 6041 were diagnosed by rSCS. Treatment costs were €467 higher for patients in the control group (without rSCS). However, the screening costs were higher. For all people covered by the health insurance company, there were additional costs of €1339-1431 per patient with skin cancer diagnosed by rSCS. Thus, total costs, including costs for treatment and screening, were €872-964 higher for patients diagnosed by rSCS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, rSCS has the potential to reduce treatment costs; however, the screening costs exceed these savings.

Live interactive teledermatology compared to in-person care - a systematic review.

Teledermatology is a rapidly developing field of dermatological care, giving the opportunity to deliver more efficient healthcare to patients in remote areas. Live interactive (LI) teledermatology uses videoconferencing and, hence, allows for direct communication. A current overview on effectiveness, costs, feasibility and accuracy of LI applications compared to standard care is missing. The present systematic review provides this overview on LI teledermatology. Two databases were searched until April 2019, followed by title, abstract and full-text screening. Additionally, reference lists of the detected eligible articles were screened for further eligible studies. Studies comparing LI applications with standard care were included. Data on study design, sample size, country, objectives, main findings and characteristics of LI applications were extracted. Results on time effectiveness, costs, accuracy and feasibility of LI applications were synthesized. Additionally, the quality of included studies was assessed. Twenty-three publications were included in the final analysis: seventeen case-control studies and six randomized controlled trials. Included studies were published between 1997 and 2017. Study quality differed across studies. The studies were carried out in eight different countries. Eleven studies focused on patient consultation, three on patient organization and nine on combined applications of the aforementioned. Nine studies investigated applications facilitating patient-provider interaction. Fourteen studies evaluated applications combining patient-provider and provider-provider interaction, meaning the patient sits next to one provider while using LI applications to interact with another provider. This review reveals that LI applications can be a time effective substitute of or supplement to standard dermatological care. Results demonstrated that LI and standard care are comparable with regard to feasibility and accuracy. No clear tendencies can be reported with regard to costs. However, there is a lack of current comparative studies.

Strategies to reduce stigma related to visible chronic skin diseases: a systematic review.

Many patients with a visible chronic skin disease experience discrimination and stigmatization. This results in psychosocial impairments in addition to the burden of disease and emphasizes the urgency to implement effective stigma-reduction strategies. To synthesize what is known globally about effective interventions to reduce stigma associated with visible chronic skin diseases, a systematic review was conducted. Four electronic databases were searched until May 2018. Studies evaluating interventions to reduce stigmatization in patients with visible chronic skin diseases and applying at least one stigma-related outcome measure were included. Data were extracted on study design, country, study population, outcome measures and main findings. Results were subsequently synthesized in a narrative review. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools were used to assess study quality. Nineteen studies were included in the review. Study design was very heterogeneous and study quality rather poor. Thirteen studies addresses patients with leprosy in low- and middle-income countries, and one study each targeted patients with onychomycosis, leg ulcer, facial disfigurement, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo and alopecia. Evaluated interventions were mainly multi-faceted incorporating more than one type of intervention. While 10 studies focused on the reduction in self-stigma and 4 on the reduction in public stigma, another 5 studies aimed at reducing both. The present review revealed a lack of high-quality studies on effective approaches to reduce stigmatization of patients with visible chronic skin diseases. Development and evaluation of intervention formats to adequately address stigma is essential to promote patients' health and well-being.