02 | Melanoma training in primary care: comparing traditional teaching with telemedicine-enhanced education. A review
Giorgia Ravaglia1, Edoardo Mora2, Debora Cantagalli3, Serena Magi4, Laura Mazzoni4, Matelda Medri4, Cesare Massone5, Davide Melandri6, Federica Zamagni7, Ines Zanna8, Gianluca Pistore9, Saverio Caini8, Salvatore Amato10, Vincenzo De Giorgi11, Pietro Quaglino12, Maria Antonietta Pizzichetta13|14, Giovanni Luigi Tripepi15, Sofia Spagnolini1, Ignazio Stanganelli1|4 | 1Dermatology Resident Training Program, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma; 2Dermatology Unit, Ospedale S. Anna, Como; 3Primary Care Resident Training program, Ausl Bologna, Bologna; 4Skin Cancer Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori "Dino Amadori" – IRST Meldola, Forlì-Cesena; 5Dermatology Unit, Ospedali Galliera, Genova; 6Dermatology Unit, AUSL Romagna and University of Bologna, Cesena. 7Registro Tumori della Regione Emilia Romagna, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori "Dino Amadori" - IRST Meldola, Forlì-Cesena; 8Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Clinical Network, ISPRO, Florence; 9Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata - IRCCS, Rome; 10Associazione Dermatologi Ospedalieri Italiani, ADOI, Sicilia and Teledermatology working group, Palermo; 11Dermatology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence; 12Dermatologic Clinic, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Torino; 13Department of Dermatology, University of Trieste, Trieste; 14Department of Medical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, CRO, IRCCS, Aviano; 15CNR-IFC, Clinical Epidemiology and Pathophysiology of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Background: General practitioners play a crucial role in the early detection and prevention of cutaneous melanoma. However, structured training on skin cancer diagnosis and management is often lacking.
Objective: This narrative review aims to map the current educational interventions for general practitioners focused on melanoma, assess their methodological approaches and outcomes, and explore the contribution of e-learning and telemedicine in medical education.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search identified 54 relevant studies published between January the 1st, 1995 and December the 31st, 2024. Data were extracted and categorized by topics covered, training methodology, interactivity, and clinical outcomes.
Results: Training programs varied widely in duration, delivery, and content. Interventions that integrated dermoscopy and interactive methodologies demonstrated improved diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact. E-learning, particularly asynchronous models, emerged as a flexible and effective modality, although few studies evaluated long-term retention or clinical practice changes.
Conclusions: Educational programs tailored to general practitioners and enriched with dermoscopy and telemedicine tools show promise in improving melanoma detection and care. Structured, interactive, and blended/hybrid learning models should be prioritized to support effective primary and secondary prevention.
Downloads
Citations
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
