RESUMEN
Background: Studies focusing on the return to work (RTW) experiences of patients with a brain tumor (BT) are scarce. We aimed to explore, in-depth, the occupational expectations, experiences, and satisfaction of patients who RTW after a BT diagnosis and treatment, those not able to, and their family caregivers. Methods: This multicenter, cross-sectional study utilized semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted with adults diagnosed with primary BT, in employment/self-employed before diagnosis, currently in follow-up care, and also with their caregivers. Results: In total, 23 interviews (17 patients/6 caregivers) took place. Five themes were developed: (1) Early (adjustments and) expectations: "Thought I would be back at work the following Monday"; pre-treatment patients wanted to be better informed about potential recovery time and side-effects. (2) Drivers to RTW: "Getting my life back on track"; RTW was seen as a symbol of normality and also dictated by financial pressures. (3) Experiences returning to work: "It's had its ups and downs": patients who had successfully returned were supported by employers financially, emotionally, and practically. (4) Required support: "He had surgery and that was it": suggested support included a back-to-work scheme and comprehensive financial support. (5) Caring and paid work: The "juggling act": carer's work was significantly impacted; often reducing/increasing their working hours while managing increasing caring demands. Conclusions: Future research focusing on RTW in neuro-oncology populations is needed. Interventions should be developed to improve employer/employee communication, and increase knowledge about BT care and possibilities for RTW, to support patients and caregivers towards sustained employment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The lack of an international standard for assessing and communicating health app quality and the lack of consensus about what makes a high-quality health app negatively affect the uptake of such apps. At the request of the European Commission, the international Standard Development Organizations (SDOs), European Committee for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization, and International Electrotechnical Commission have joined forces to develop a technical specification (TS) for assessing the quality and reliability of health and wellness apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create a useful, globally applicable, trustworthy, and usable framework to assess health app quality. METHODS: A 2-round Delphi technique with 83 experts from 6 continents (predominantly Europe) participating in one (n=42, 51%) or both (n=41, 49%) rounds was used to achieve consensus on a framework for assessing health app quality. Aims included identifying the maximum 100 requirement questions for the uptake of apps that do or do not qualify as medical devices. The draft assessment framework was built on 26 existing frameworks, the principles of stringent legislation, and input from 20 core experts. A follow-up survey with 28 respondents informed a scoring mechanism for the questions. After subsequent alignment with related standards, the quality assessment framework was tested and fine-tuned with manufacturers of 11 COVID-19 symptom apps. National mirror committees from the 52 countries that participated in the SDO technical committees were invited to comment on 4 working drafts and subsequently vote on the TS. RESULTS: The final quality assessment framework includes 81 questions, 67 (83%) of which impact the scores of 4 overarching quality aspects. After testing with people with low health literacy, these aspects were phrased as "Healthy and safe," "Easy to use," "Secure data," and "Robust build." The scoring mechanism enables communication of the quality assessment results in a health app quality score and label, alongside a detailed report. Unstructured interviews with stakeholders revealed that evidence and third-party assessment are needed for health app uptake. The manufacturers considered the time needed to complete the assessment and gather evidence (2-4 days) acceptable. Publication of CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2:2021 Health software - Part 2: Health and wellness apps - Quality and reliability was approved in May 2021 in a nearly unanimous vote by 34 national SDOs, including 6 of the 10 most populous countries worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: A useful and usable international standard for health app quality assessment was developed. Its quality, approval rate, and early use provide proof of its potential to become the trusted, commonly used global framework. The framework will help manufacturers enhance and efficiently demonstrate the quality of health apps, consumers, and health care professionals to make informed decisions on health apps. It will also help insurers to make reimbursement decisions on health apps.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Medical device certification has undergone significant changes in recent years. However, exploration of stakeholder experiences remains relatively limited, particularly in the context of software as a medical device. This study sought to explore stakeholder experiences of medical device certification across both the UK and EU. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 22) analysed using inductive-thematic analysis, synthesised using activity theory. RESULTS: Innovators, consultants and notified bodies share more similarities than differences when discussing barriers and enablers to achieving medical device certification. Systemic tensions between existing rules, tools, community understanding and division of labour currently undermine the intended aim of certification processes. Existing rules are considered complex, with small and medium-sized enterprises considered disproportionality affected, resulting in several unintended outcomes including the perceived 'killing' of innovation. Existing certification processes are described as unfit for purpose, unethical and unsustainable. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder experiences suggest that the intention of establishing a robust and sustainable regulatory framework capable of ensuring a high level of safety whilst also supporting innovation is not yet being realised. Failure to enact desired changes may further jeopardise future innovations, outcomes and care quality.
