Quality of Digital Health Interventions Across Different Health Care Domains: Secondary Data Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: There are more than 350,000 digital health interventions (DHIs) in the app stores. To ensure that they are effective and safe to use, they should be assessed for compliance with best practice standards. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to examine and compare the compliance of DHIs with best practice standards and adherence to user experience (UX), professional and clinical assurance (PCA), and data privacy (DP). METHODS: We collected assessment data from 1574 DHIs using the Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Apps Baseline Review (OBR) assessment tool. As part of the assessment, each DHI received a score out of 100 for each of the abovementioned areas (ie, UX, PCA, and DP). These 3 OBR scores are combined to make up the overall ORCHA score (a proxy for quality). Inferential statistics, probability distributions, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Cliff delta, and Dunn tests were used to conduct the data analysis. RESULTS: We found that 57.3% (902/1574) of the DHIs had an Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Apps (ORCHA) score below the threshold of 65. The overall median OBR score (ORCHA score) for all DHIs was 61.5 (IQR 51.0-73.0) out of 100. A total of 46.2% (12/26) of DHI's health care domains had a median equal to or above the ORCHA threshold score of 65. For the 3 assessment areas (UX, DP, and PCA), DHIs scored the highest for the UX assessment 75.2 (IQR 70.0-79.6), followed by DP 65.1 (IQR 55.0-73.4) and PCA 49.6 (IQR 31.9-76.1). UX scores had the least variance (SD 13.9), while PCA scores had the most (SD 24.8). Respiratory and urology DHIs were consistently highly ranked in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework tiers B and C based on their ORCHA score. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high level of variability in the ORCHA scores of DHIs across different health care domains. This suggests that there is an urgent need to improve compliance with best practices in some health care areas. Possible explanations for the observed differences might include varied market maturity and commercial interests within the different health care domains. More investment to support the development of higher-quality DHIs in areas such as ophthalmology, allergy, women's health, sexual health, and dental care may be needed.

Association Between the Characteristics of mHealth Apps and User Input During Development and Testing: Secondary Analysis of App Assessment Data.

BACKGROUND: User involvement is increasingly acknowledged as a central part of health care innovation. However, meaningful user involvement during the development and testing of mobile health apps is often not fully realized. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine in which areas user input is most prevalent and whether there is an association between user inclusion and compliance with best practices for mobile health apps. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted on an assessment data set of 1595 health apps. The data set contained information on whether the apps had been developed or tested with user input and whether they followed best practices across several domains. Background information was also available regarding the apps' country of origin, targeted condition areas, subjective user ratings, download numbers, and risk (as per the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework [ESF]). Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Pearson chi-square analyses were applied to the data. RESULTS: User involvement was reported by 8.71% (139/1595) of apps for only the development phase, by 33.67% (537/1595) of apps for only the testing phase, by 21.88% (349/1595) of apps for both phases, and by 35.74% (570/1595) of apps for neither phase. The highest percentage of health apps with reported user input during development was observed in Denmark (19/24, 79%); in the condition areas of diabetes (38/79, 48%), cardiology (15/32, 47%), pain management (20/43, 47%), and oncology (25/54, 46%); and for high app risk (ESF tier 3a; 105/263, 39.9%). The highest percentage of health apps with reported user input during testing was observed in Belgium (10/11, 91%), Sweden (29/34, 85%), and France (13/16, 81%); in the condition areas of neurodiversity (42/52, 81%), respiratory health (58/76, 76%), cardiology (23/32, 72%), and diabetes (56/79, 71%); and for high app risk (ESF tier 3a; 176/263, 66.9%). Notably, apps that reported seeking user input during testing demonstrated significantly more downloads than those that did not (P=.008), and user inclusion was associated with better compliance with best practices in clinical assurance, data privacy, risk management, and user experience. CONCLUSIONS: The countries and condition areas in which the highest percentage of health apps with user involvement were observed tended to be those with higher digital maturity in health care and more funding availability, respectively. This suggests that there may be a trade-off between developers' willingness or ability to involve users and the need to meet challenges arising from infrastructure limitations and financial constraints. Moreover, the finding of a positive association between user inclusion and compliance with best practices indicates that, where no other guidance is available, users may benefit from prioritizing health apps developed with user input as the latter may be a proxy for broader app quality.

An age-old problem or an old-age problem? A UK survey of attitudes, historical use and recommendations by healthcare professionals to use healthcare apps.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated barriers to accessing face-to-face care. Consequently, the potential for digital health technologies (DHTs) to address unmet needs has gained traction. DHTs may circumvent several barriers to healthy independent living, resulting in both socioeconomic and clinical benefits. However, previous studies have demonstrated these benefits may be disproportionately realised among younger populations while excluding older people. METHODS: We performed a prospective survey using the One Poll market research platform among 2000 adults from the United Kingdom. To mitigate against self-selection bias, participants were not informed of the topic of the survey until they had completed recruitment. We compared willingness to use and historical use of health-apps, in addition to recommendations to use health-apps from healthcare professionals; comparing outcomes across all age groups, including a reference group (n = 222) of those aged 18-24. Outcomes were analysed using multivariate logistic regression and reported as odds ratios (OR) with respondent age, ethnicity, gender, and location as covariates. RESULTS: Willingness to use health-apps decreased significantly with age, reaching a minimum (OR = 0.39) among those aged 65 and over compared to the reference group of 18-24 year olds. Despite this, more than 52% of those aged 65 and over were willing to use health-apps. Functions and features most cited as useful by older populations included symptom self-monitoring and surgery recovery assistance. The likelihood of never having used a health-app also increased consistently with age, reaching a maximum among those aged 65 and over (OR = 18.3). Finally, the likelihood of being recommended health-apps by a healthcare professional decreased significantly with age, (OR = 0.09) for those aged 65 and over. In absolute terms, 33.8% of those aged 18-24, and 3.9% of those aged 65 and over were recommended health-apps by their healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Although absolute utilisation of health-apps decreases with age, the findings of this study suggest that the gap between those willing to use health-apps, and those being recommended health-apps by healthcare professionals increases with age. Given the increasing availability of evidence-based health-apps designed for older populations, this may result in entirely avoidable unmet needs, suggesting that more should be done by healthcare professionals to recommend health-apps to older persons who are generally positive about their use. This may result in considerable improvements in healthy and independent ageing.

The cost-effectiveness of seven behavioural interventions to prevent drug misuse in vulnerable populations.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed a guideline on drug misuse prevention in vulnerable populations. Part of the guideline development process involved evaluating cost-effectiveness and determining which interventions represented good value for money. METHODS: Economic models were developed for seven interventions which aimed to prevent drug use in vulnerable populations. The models compared the costs (to the health and crime sectors) and health benefits (in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of each intervention and its comparator. Sensitivity analysis explored the uncertainty associated with the cost of each intervention and duration of its effect. RESULTS: The reduction in drug use for each intervention partly offset the costs of the intervention, and improved health outcomes (QALYs). However, with high intervention costs and low QALY gains, none of the interventions were estimated to be cost-effective in the base case. Sensitivity analysis found that some of the interventions could be cost-effective if they could be delivered at a lower cost, or if the effect could be sustained for more than two years. CONCLUSIONS: For drug misuse prevention to be prioritised by funders, the consequences of drug misuse need to be understood, and interventions need to be shown to be effective and cost-effective. Quantifying the wider harms of drug misuse and wider benefits of prevention interventions poses challenges in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of drug misuse prevention interventions. A greater understanding of the consequences of drug misuse and causal factors could facilitate development of cost-effective interventions to prevent drug misuse.

A Tale of Two Thresholds: A Framework for Prioritization within the Cancer Drugs Fund.

BACKGOUND: The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) has been the subject of controversy since its inception, with critics arguing that it creates a "backdoor" to the National Health Service (NHS), circumventing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and its health technology assessment program. Nonetheless, with its creation comes a new decision problem, how to best allocate resources among cancer drugs. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to estimate CDF's willingness and ability to pay for cancer drugs, providing guidance regarding where CDF funds are best spent, and determining the number of NHS quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) displaced through the existence of the fund. METHODS: Using CDF utilization figures, cost-per-QALY, and treatment episode costs from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence health technology assessment reports, the league-table approach was applied to determine appropriate cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform the CDF's decision making. RESULTS: The CDF exhibits a willingness-to-pay value of £223,627 per QALY, with 74% and 33% of expenditure for drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of more than £50,000 and more than £90,000, respectively. During 2013-2014, CDF expenditure generated 4,677 QALYs, compared with a potential 13,485 if the same funds were used as part of routine NHS commissioning, displacing 8,808 QALYs. By ring fencing 10%, 25%, and 50% of the CDF budget for the provision of unevaluated drugs, cost-effectiveness thresholds of £149,000, £111,400, and £68,600 were calculated, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting the proposed framework for CDF prioritization would result in disinvestment from a number of highly cost-ineffective drugs applicable for CDF reimbursement. The present lack of a formal economic evaluation not only results in net health losses but also compromises a founding principle of the NHS, that of "equal access for equal need."

Fabrication of 3-dimensional cellular constructs via microstereolithography using a simple, three-component, poly(ethylene glycol) acrylate-based system.

A novel method for the production of inhibitor- and solvent-free resins suitable for three-dimensional (3D) microstereolithography is reported. Using an exemplar poly(ethylene glycol)-based resin, the control of features in the X, Y, and Z planes is demonstrated such that complex structures can be manufactured. Human mesenchymal stem cells cultured on the manufactured scaffolds remained viable during the 7 day assessment period, with proliferation rates comparable to those observed on tissue culture polystyrene. These data suggest that this novel, yet simple, method is suitable for the production of 3D scaffolds for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications.