Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of mHealth Apps From the Perspective of Patients: Focus Group and Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Since fall 2020, mobile health (mHealth) apps have become an integral part of the German health care system. The belief that mHealth apps have the potential to make the health care system more efficient, close gaps in care, and improve the economic outcomes related to health is unwavering and already partially confirmed. Nevertheless, problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps usually remain unconsidered. OBJECTIVE: The focus groups and interviews conducted in this study aim to shed light on problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps from the perspective of patients. METHODS: Guided focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with patients with a disease for which an approved mHealth app was available at the time of the interviews. Participants were recruited via self-help groups. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to a qualitative content analysis. The content analysis was based on 10 problem categories ("validity," "usability," "technology," "use and adherence," "data privacy and security," "patient-physician relationship," "knowledge and skills," "individuality," "implementation," and "costs") identified in a previously conducted scoping review. Participants were asked to fill out an additional questionnaire about their sociodemographic data and about their use of technology. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were interviewed in 5 focus groups (3 onsite and 2 web-based) and 5 individual web-based interviews. The additional questionnaire was completed by 32 of the participants. Patients presented with a variety of different diseases, such as arthrosis, tinnitus, depression, or lung cancer. Overall, 16% (5/32) of the participants had already been prescribed an app. During the interviews, all 10 problem categories were discussed and considered important by patients. A myriad of problem manifestations could be identified for each category. This study shows that there are relevant problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps from the perspective of patients, which warrant further attention. CONCLUSIONS: There are essentially 3 different areas of problems in the context of mHealth apps that could be addressed to improve care: quality of the respective mHealth app, its integration into health care, and the expandable digital literacy of patients.

Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The digitization of health care led to a steady increase in the adoption and use of mobile health (mHealth) apps. Germany is the first country in the world to cover the costs of mHealth apps through statutory health insurance. Although the benefits of mHealth apps are discussed in detail, aspects of problems and barriers are rarely studied. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map and categorize the evidence on problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. Additional searches were conducted on JMIR Publications and on websites of relevant international organizations. The inclusion criteria were publications dealing with apps similar to those approved in the German health care system, publications addressing problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps, and articles published between January 1, 2015, and June 8, 2021. Study selection was performed by 2 reviewers. The manuscript was drafted according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. The analysis of the included publications and categorization of problems and hurdles were performed using MAXQDA (VERBI Software GmbH). RESULTS: The database search identified 1479 publications. Of the 1479 publications, 21 (1.42%) met the inclusion criteria. A further 8 publications were included from citation searching and searching in JMIR Publications. The identified publications were analyzed for problems and barriers. Problems and barriers were classified into 10 categories ("validity," "usability," "technology," "use and adherence," "data privacy and security," "patient-physician relationship," "knowledge and skills," "individuality," "implementation," and "costs"). The most frequently mentioned categories were use and adherence (eg, incorporating the app into daily life or dropouts from use; n=22) and usability (eg, ease of use and design; n=19). CONCLUSIONS: The search identified various problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps. Although problems at the app level (such as usability) are studied frequently, problems at the system level are addressed rather vaguely. To ensure optimal use of and care with mHealth apps, it is essential to consider all types of problems and barriers. Therefore, researchers and policy makers should have a special focus on this issue to identify the needs for quality assurance. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/32702.

[Reimbursement for New Examination and Treatment Methods of Outpatients: Comparison of Statutory Health and Private Medical Insurance]. / Die Umsetzung neuer Untersuchungs- und Behandlungsmethoden in die vertragsärztliche Kollektivversorgung und in die privatärztliche ambulante Versorgung.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of the study was to compare the timeliness of reimbursement for new examination and treatment methods in outpatient care in the social (SHI) and private insurance system (PHI) in Germany. METHODOLOGY: For the reimbursement in the SHI system, the decisions and further documentation of the Joint Federal Committee and the evaluation committee could be used. For the reimbursement in the PHI system, for example, the resolutions of the Central Consultation Committee for Fee Schedule Questions and those of the Fee Schedule Committee, but also evaluations of the North Rhine Medical Association and a working group of the German Association of PHI were used. Included were medical methods finally assessed for use in outpatient medical care by the Joint Federal Committee between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 17 individual resolutions, two series of resolutions consisting of several individual resolutions, and regulations concerning companion diagnostics were included. The time intervals between the start of the procedure and the introduction of the new method into the SHI system varied widely (14 to 216 months). At the same time, the study showed that for the majority of the methods, reimbursement in PHI was possible earlier than in SHI. Furthermore, five methods showed a potential limitation of reimbursement in PHI dependent on individual insurance contracts, but in two cases also reimbursement by PHI for services later assessed as without benefit by SHI. CONCLUSION: Medical procedures based on the included new methods in most cases were reimbursed in the PHI earlier than in the SHI system. However, this also implies a risk of reimbursing services that are subsequently assessed by the Joint Federal Committee as having no medical benefit. If the joint federal committee assessment is used as a benchmark, this could lead to a reduction in the cost-effectiveness of care and, in individual cases, to patient harm due to overuse or misuse of care. Thus, there is a conflict between early access to new examination and treatment methods (especially in the case of very long Joint Federal Committee procedures) and (cost) effectiveness and assurance of the quality of care.

[Reform Implementation of the Psychotherapy Guideline 2017: Results from Focus Groups Within the Framework of the Innovation Fund Project EVA PT-RL]. / Umsetzung der Reform der Psychotherapie-Richtlinie 2017: Ergebnisse aus Fokusgruppen im Rahmen des Innovationsfonds-Projekts EVA PT-RL.

BACKGROUND: Mental illnesses cause both individual and social burdens. The main goal of the structural reform of the Psychotherapy Guideline of 2017 was to improve access to psychotherapeutic care. The focus groups, which were conducted as part of the research project "Evaluation of the Psychotherapy Guideline (Eva PT-RL)" funded by the Innovation Fund, address the implementation of the goals of the reform and the individual newly introduced care elements as well as hurdles to implementation from the perspective of service providers, patients and insurers. METHODS: Six focus groups and five individual interviews were conducted with people from the three stakeholder groups mentioned above. The basis was a semistructured interview guide adapted to the respective group of people based on a structured literature research. The interviews were conducted by a team of moderators via video conference, recorded and transcribed. The analysis was carried out via a qualitative content analysis based on Mayring. RESULTS: The initial psychotherapeutic consultation received a generally positive assessment particularly with regard to timely initial access to psychotherapeutic care. At the same time a delayed transition to subsequent guideline psychotherapy due to a lack of capacity was criticized by all participant groups. Beneficial effects of telephone accessibility as well as increased networking of psychotherapeutic care also with other psychosocial services were mentioned. However the implementation of acute treatment and relapse prophylaxis was found to be inadequate. The central finding was that the impulse for a paradigm shift aimed at by the reform was perceived and implemented differently by the psychotherapists - from a focus on individual therapy processes to a public mental health perspective with a commitment to care coordination. CONCLUSION: Some elements of the reform were criticized by stakeholders, the transition from initial appointments to continuous treatment was considered as not timely enough, and the design of other elements (acute treatment and relapse prevention regulations) was assessed as improvable. There is a need for further research. The results of the focus groups serve as a basis for following project steps including a survey of psychotherapists, patients and GPs.

[Evaluating the reform of the psychotherapy guideline using a mixed-methods approach: a study protocol]. / Mixed-Methods-Ansatz zur Evaluation der Reform der Psychotherapie-Richtlinie: ein Studienprotokoll.

INTRODUCTION: In Germany, psychotherapy in outpatient statutory health care is regulated by the Psychotherapy Guideline (PT-GL). A discussion on waiting times and inadequate care for patients resulted in a structural reform of the PT-GL in 2017. The reform aims to improve access to psychotherapy and the entire course of care and treatment. The purpose of the present study was the evaluation of the new elements and identification of obstacles and barriers in their implementation. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to evaluate the reform of the PT-GL. In a retrospective cohort-based analysis of anonymized administrative claim data from the statutory health insurances BARMER and AOK, the health care situation before and after the reform were compared. In addition, a cross-sectional questionnaire survey evaluated the implementation of the new care elements from the perspective of psychotherapists, general practitioners and patients. The questionnaires were developed based on focus groups with stakeholders and a literature search. The survey results provided the data basis for the cross-sectional analysis together with the routine data on the care situation after the reform of the PT-GL as well as aggregated, anonymized data from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians on statutory health insurance care and on the use of the appointment service centers. CONCLUSION: By combining quantitative and qualitative data, the effects of the structural reform of the PT-GL of 2016 can be analyzed at the individual and structural level as well as in relation to the entire care and treatment process. Based on this, proposals for a needs-oriented further development of the PT-GL will be prepared, considering the perspectives of various interest groups.

A Best-Worst Scaling Study of the General Population's Preferences for Activities in Living Arrangements for Persons With Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Activity involvement is a central element of dementia care. However, few studies have examined preferences for types of activities for persons who may be in need of care in the future. In this study, a best-worst scaling (BWS) was conducted to gather insights on preferred activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia in the general population aged 50-65 years from rural and urban regions. METHODS: BWS tasks were developed based on literature searches and focus groups. The final BWS contains ten activities, namely 'interaction with animals', 'gardening', 'painting, handicrafts, manual activities', 'household activities (e.g., folding laundry, cooking)', 'watching television', 'practicing religion', 'listening to music and singing familiar songs', 'conversations about the past', 'walks and excursions', 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)'. Each participant had to fill out subsets of four objects each and identify them as best and worst. A postal survey was sent to a total of 4390 persons from rural and urban regions aged between 50 and 65 years. Results were analyzed by count analysis and logit models. It was examined if preferences differ with respect to gender, religiousness, and informal caregiving experience. RESULTS: A total of 840 questionnaires were returned, and 627 surveys were included in the analysis. In the rural sample, the highest relative importance (RI) was assigned to 'walks and excursions' (RI: 100%), 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)' (RI: 56%), 'gardening' (RI: 28%), and 'interaction with animals' (26%). In the urban sample, 'walks and excursions' (RI: 100%), 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)' (RI: 37%), 'interaction with animals' (25%) and 'gardening' (RI: 22%) were perceived as most important. In both groups, household activities and practicing religion were of lowest importance. Importance ranks differed between subgroups. Results of the logit models with random effects showed the same order as results from the count analyses. DISCUSSION: Our findings show that respondents generally favored activities with an outdoor component, while the household activities that are part of many concepts were of low importance to respondents. Thus, our study can inform the design of a preference-based specific range of activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia.

Preferences for Living Arrangements in Dementia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Dementia affects about 55 million people worldwide. Demographic change and shifting lifestyles challenge the organization of dementia care. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for living arrangements in dementia in urban and rural regions of Germany. METHODS: Preliminary work included review of previous literature and focus groups. The DCE consists of seven attributes (group size, staff qualifications, organization of care, activities offered, support of religious practice, access to garden, consideration of food preferences) with three levels each. Individuals from the general population between the ages of 50 and 65 years were identified through population registration offices in three rural municipalities and one urban area, and 4390 individuals were approached via postal survey. A hierarchical Bayesian mixed logit model was estimated and interactions with sociodemographic characteristics were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 428 and 412 questionnaires were returned by rural and urban respondents, respectively. Access to a garden was perceived as the most important attribute (average importance 36.0% in the rural sample and 33.4% in the urban sample), followed by consideration of food preferences (15.8%, 17.8%), staff qualification (14.6%, 15.3%), care organization (11.4%, 12.3%), group size (12.2%, 11.1%), and range of activities (8.0%, 10.1%). The attribute relating to religious practice was given the least importance (2.1%, 0%). Preferences vary according to gender, age, religious beliefs, experience as an informal caregiver, and migrant background. CONCLUSION: Heterogeneous preferences for living arrangements for people with dementia were identified. The expansion of concepts with access to natural environments for persons with dementia might be a viable option for the formal care market in Germany. Further research is needed to meet the challenges of setting up and designing innovative living arrangements for people with dementia. Preferences vary by gender, age, religious beliefs, experience as an informal caregiver, and migrant background.

Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.

Introduction: The number of mHealth apps has increased rapidly during recent years. Literature suggests a number of problems and barriers to the adoption of mHealth apps, including issues such as validity, usability, as well as data privacy and security. Continuous quality assessment and assurance systems might help to overcome these barriers. Aim of this scoping review was to collate literature on quality assessment tools and quality assurance systems for mHealth apps, compile the components of the tools, and derive overarching quality dimensions, which are potentially relevant for the continuous quality assessment of mHealth apps. Methods: Literature searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo. Articles in English or German language were included if they contained information on development, application, or validation of generic concepts of quality assessment or quality assurance of mHealth apps. Screening and extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and clustered into quality dimensions. Results: A total of 70 publications met inclusion criteria. Included publications contain information on five quality assurance systems and further 24 quality assessment tools for mHealth apps. Of these 29 systems/tools, 8 were developed for the assessment of mHealth apps for specific diseases, 16 for assessing mHealth apps for all fields of health and another five are not restricted to health apps. Identified quality criteria and aspects were extracted and grouped into a total of 14 quality dimensions, namely "information and transparency", "validity and (added) value", "(medical) safety", "interoperability and compatibility", "actuality", "engagement", "data privacy and data security", "usability and design", "technology", "organizational aspects", "social aspects", "legal aspects", "equity and equality", and "cost(-effectiveness)". Discussion: This scoping review provides a broad overview of existing quality assessment and assurance systems. Many of the tools included cover only a few dimensions and aspects and therefore do not allow for a comprehensive quality assessment or quality assurance. Our findings can contribute to the development of continuous quality assessment and assurance systems for mHealth apps. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/7/e36974/, International Registered Report Identifier, IRRID (DERR1-10.2196/36974).

Prescription of Opioid Analgesics for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Germany despite Contraindications: Administrative Claims Data Analysis.

In Germany, long-term opioid treatment (L-TOT) for chronic non-tumor pain (CNTP) is discussed as not being performed according to the German guideline on L-TOT for CNTP. In the present analysis, the occurrence and predictors of inappropriate care/overuse in a cohort of German insureds with L-TOT for CNTP by the presence of a contraindication with concurrent opioid analgesic (OA) therapy were investigated. We also analyzed whether prescribing physicians themselves diagnosed a contraindication. The retrospective cohort study was based on administrative claims data from a German statutory health insurance. Eight contraindication groups were defined based on the German guideline. Logistic regressions were performed in order to identify predictors for OA prescriptions despite contraindications. The possible knowledge of the prescribing physician about the contraindication was approximated by analyzing concordant unique physician identification numbers of OA prescriptions and contraindication diagnoses. A total of 113,476 individuals (75% female) with a mean age of 72 years were included. The most common documented contraindications were primary headaches (8.7%), severe mood disorders (7.7%) and pain in somatoform disorders (4.5%). The logistic regressions identified a younger age, longer history of OA therapy, opioid related psychological problems, and outpatient psychosomatic primary care as positive predictors for all contraindication groups.

Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of mobile health (mHealth) apps is increasing rapidly worldwide. More and more institutions and organizations develop regulations and guidelines to enable an evidence-based and safe use. In Germany, mHealth apps fulfilling predefined criteria (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen [DiGA]) can be prescribed and are reimbursable by the German statutory health insurance scheme. Due to the increasing distribution of DiGA, problems and barriers should receive special attention. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the relevant problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps fulfilling the criteria of DiGA. METHODS: This scoping review will follow published methodological frameworks and the PRISMA-Scr (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) criteria. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and JMIR), reference lists of relevant articles, and grey literature sources will be searched. Two reviewers will assess the eligibility of the articles by a two-stage (title and abstract as well as full text) screening process. Only problems and barriers related to mHealth apps fulfilling the criteria of DiGA are included for this research. The identified studies will be categorized and analyzed with MAXQDA. RESULTS: This scoping review gives an overview of the available evidence and identifies research gaps regarding problems and barriers related to DiGA. The results are planned to be submitted to an indexed, peer-reviewed journal in the first quarter of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review to identify the problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps fulfilling the German definition of DiGA. Nevertheless, the findings can be applied to other contexts and health care systems as well. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32702.

Quality Assessment of Digital Health Applications: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: All over the world, development and usage of mobile health (mHealth) apps is increasing. While apps offer numerous opportunities to improve health care, there are associated problems that differ significantly from those of traditional health care services. Further investigations on the quality of mHealth apps are needed to address these problems. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and map research on quality assessment and quality assurance of mHealth apps and their transferability to continuous quality assurance of mHealth apps. METHODS: The scoping review will follow published methodological frameworks for scoping studies as well as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews criteria. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO), reference lists of relevant articles, and websites of relevant institutions will be searched. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of articles. Therefore, a 2-stage (title and abstract, followed by full text) screening process was conducted. Quality management systems and quality assessment tools will be analyzed and included in our review. Particular focus is placed on quality dimensions. RESULTS: This scoping review provides an overview of the available evidence and identifies research gaps regarding continuous quality assessment of mHealth apps. Thereby, relevant quality dimensions and criteria can be identified and their eligibility and relevance for the development of a continuous quality assurance system of mHealth apps can be determined. Our results are planned to be submitted to an indexed, peer-reviewed journal in the second half of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review in the context of continuous quality assurance of mHealth apps. Our results will be used within the research "Continuous quality assurance of Digital Health Applications" ("QuaSiApps") project funded by the German Federal Joint Committee. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36974.