Black Skin Dermatology Online, from the project to the website: A needed collaboration between North and South

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1193-1199

  Ezzedine, K ^a   Amiel, A ^b,c   Vereecken, P ^a   Simonart, T ^a   Schietse, B ^a   Seymons, K ^d   Ndiaye, B S ^e   Leemput, C Van De ^b   Stevens, A ^f   De Weert, J ^g   Lambert, J ^d   Heenen, M ^a  

^a ERASME HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

^c CNRS UPS 846   (France)

^d ANTWERP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^e Department of Dermatology   (Senegal)

^f INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL MEDICINE   (Belgium)

^g GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

E learning; Pigmented skin; Teledermatology; Telediagnostic; Usability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMMUNICATION SOFTWARE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HYPERPIGMENTATION; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES; INTERNET; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TELECONSULTATION; TELEDERMATOLOGY; TELEMEDICINE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AFRICAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; BELGIUM; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DERMATOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERNET; SKIN DISEASES; TELEMEDICINE;

EID: 51649112871     PISSN: 09269959     EISSN: 14683083     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2008.02762.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Wootton R. Telemedicine: a cautious welcome. Br Med J 1996 313 : 1375 1377.
2. Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Masenga EJ, Haeffner A, Burg G. Teledermatology as a new tool in sub-Saharan Africa: an experience from Tanzania. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000 42 : 833 835.
3. http://www.icd10.ch/index.asp.
4. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 1989 13 : 319 340.
5. Bagozzi RP, Davis FD, Warshaw PR. Development and test of a theory of a technological learning and usage. Hum Relat 1992 45 : 660 686.
6. Adams DA, Nelson RR, Todd PA. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Quart 1989 16 : 227 247.
7. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
8. Bass FM. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Manage Sci 1969 15 : 215 227.
9. Bass FM. The adoption of a marketing model: comments and observations. In : Mahajan V, Wind Y, eds. Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance. Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.
10. Budd RJ. Response bias and the theory of reasoned action. Soc Cognition 1987 5 : 95 107.
11. Czaja SJ, Hammond K, Blascovich JJ, Swede H. Learning to use a word processing system as a function of training strategy. Behav Inform Technol 1986 5 : 203 216.
12. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 1989 35 : 982 1003.
13. Hendrickson AR, Massey PD, Cronan TP. On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Quart 1993 17 : 227 230.
14. Keil M, Beranek PM, Konsynski BR. Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decis Support Syst 1995 13 : 75 91.
15. Segars AH, Grover V. Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quart 1993 17 : 517 525.
16. Stewart T. Task fit, ease-of-use and computer facilities. In : Bjørn-Andersen N, Eason K, Robey D, eds. Managing Computer Impact: An International Study of Management and Organizations. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1986 : 63 76.
17. Subramanian GH. A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Sci 1994 25 : 863 873.
18. Szajna B. Software evaluation and choice: predictive evaluation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument. MIS Quart 1994 18 : 319 324.
19. Tornatzky LG, Klein RJ. Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE T Eng Manage 1982 EM-29 : 28 45.
20. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 2000 46 : 186 204.
21. Jobson JD. Applied Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. II. Categorical and Multivariate Methods. Springer Verlag, New York, 1992.
22. Wahlgren CF, Edelbring S, Fors U, Hindbeck H, Stahle M. Evaluation of an interactive case simulation system in dermatology and venereology for medical students. BMC Med Educ 2006 6 : 40.
23. http://www.dermis.net/index_e.htm/.
24. http://dermatlas.med.jhmi.edu/derm/.
25. http://telemed.ipath.ch/ipath/.
26. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 2003 27 : 425 478.
27. Wildemuth BM. An empirically grounded model of the adoption of intellectual technologies. J Am Soc Info Science 1992 43 : 210 224.
28. Farrimond H, Dornan TL, Cockcroft A, Rhodes LE. Development and evaluation of an e-learning package for teaching skin examination. Action research. Br J Dermatol 2006 155 : 592 599.
29. Ou MH, West GAW, Lazarescu M, Clay C. Dynamic knowledge validation and verification for CBR teledermatology system. Art Intell Med 2007 39 : 79 96.
30. Broens TH, Huis in't Veld RM, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM et al. Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study. J Telemed Telecare 2007 13 : 303 309.
31. Gagnon MP, Godin G, Gagné C et al. An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. Int J Med Inform 2003 71 : 103 115.
32. Whited JD. Teledermatology research review. Int J Dermatol 2006 45 : 220 229.