Teledentistry: A Tool to Promote Continuing Education Actions on Oral Medicine for Primary Healthcare Professionals

Background: Difficulties in diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions are a significant cause of delayed oral cancer diagnosis, and this difficulty may be due to gaps in knowledge. This study evaluated the diagnostic skills of primary healthcare professionals regarding oral cancer and presented them with an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Telemedicine journal and e-health 2017-04, Vol.23 (4), p.327-333
Hauptverfasser: Roxo-Gonçalves, Michelle, Strey, Jéssica R., Bavaresco, Caren S., Martins, Marco Antonio T., Romanini, Juliana, Pilz, Carlos, Harzheim, Erno, Umpierre, Roberto, Martins, Manoela D., Carrard, Vinicius C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Difficulties in diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions are a significant cause of delayed oral cancer diagnosis, and this difficulty may be due to gaps in knowledge. This study evaluated the diagnostic skills of primary healthcare professionals regarding oral cancer and presented them with an e-learning course. Materials and Methods: Forty-seven primary healthcare professionals (32 dentists and 15 nondentists) enrolled in a 24-h course on oral medicine delivered through an e-learning platform. A test, based on 33 clinical images of oral lesions, was used to evaluate the diagnostic skills of participants. The participants were requested to classify each lesion as benign, potentially malignant, or malignant as well as to inform their clinical impression. Three specialists also took the test as the gold standard. Results: Twenty-seven participants completed the test. Nondentists and dentists showed a comparable sensitivity of 68.8 ± 11.1 and 63.7 ± 15.8, respectively. Specialists performed somewhat better; however, the difference was not statistically significant (81.0% ± 4.1%, p  = 0.16). Dentists and specialists (70.0% ± 16.6% and 95.5% ± 3.1%, respectively) showed higher specificity than nondentists (39.3 ± 20.6, p 
ISSN:1530-5627
1556-3669
DOI:10.1089/tmj.2016.0101