Cargando…

Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias

BACKGROUND: The Digital Healthcare Act, passed in November 2019, authorizes healthcare providers in Germany to prescribe digital health applications (DiGA) to patients covered by statutory health insurance. If DiGA meet specific efficacy requirements, they may be listed in a special directory mainta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dittrich, Florian, Mielitz, Annabelle, Pustozerov, Evgenii, Lawin, Dennis, von Jan, Ute, Albrecht, Urs-Vito
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10643174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38023782
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-23-17
_version_ 1785134297650298880
author Dittrich, Florian
Mielitz, Annabelle
Pustozerov, Evgenii
Lawin, Dennis
von Jan, Ute
Albrecht, Urs-Vito
author_facet Dittrich, Florian
Mielitz, Annabelle
Pustozerov, Evgenii
Lawin, Dennis
von Jan, Ute
Albrecht, Urs-Vito
author_sort Dittrich, Florian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Digital Healthcare Act, passed in November 2019, authorizes healthcare providers in Germany to prescribe digital health applications (DiGA) to patients covered by statutory health insurance. If DiGA meet specific efficacy requirements, they may be listed in a special directory maintained by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Due to the lack of well-founded app evaluation tools, the objectives were to assess (I) the evidence quality situation for DiGA in the literature and (II) how DiGA manufacturers deal with this issue, as reflected by the apps available in the aforementioned directory. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on DiGA using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was started on February 4, 2023. Papers addressing the evidence for applications listed in the directory were included, while duplicates and mere study protocols not reporting on data were removed. The remaining publications were used to assess the quality of the evidence or potential gaps in this regard. Results were aggregated in tabular form. RESULTS: The review identified fourteen relevant publications. Six studies suggested inadequate scientific evidence, five mentioned shortcomings of tools for validating DiGA-related evidence, and four publications described a high potential for bias, potentially influencing the validity of the results. Concerns about limited external generalizability were also raised. CONCLUSIONS: The literature review found evidence-related gaps that must be addressed with adequate measures. Our findings can serve as a basis for a plea for a more detailed examination of the quality of evidence in the DiGA context.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10643174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106431742023-07-24 Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias Dittrich, Florian Mielitz, Annabelle Pustozerov, Evgenii Lawin, Dennis von Jan, Ute Albrecht, Urs-Vito Mhealth Review Article BACKGROUND: The Digital Healthcare Act, passed in November 2019, authorizes healthcare providers in Germany to prescribe digital health applications (DiGA) to patients covered by statutory health insurance. If DiGA meet specific efficacy requirements, they may be listed in a special directory maintained by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Due to the lack of well-founded app evaluation tools, the objectives were to assess (I) the evidence quality situation for DiGA in the literature and (II) how DiGA manufacturers deal with this issue, as reflected by the apps available in the aforementioned directory. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on DiGA using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was started on February 4, 2023. Papers addressing the evidence for applications listed in the directory were included, while duplicates and mere study protocols not reporting on data were removed. The remaining publications were used to assess the quality of the evidence or potential gaps in this regard. Results were aggregated in tabular form. RESULTS: The review identified fourteen relevant publications. Six studies suggested inadequate scientific evidence, five mentioned shortcomings of tools for validating DiGA-related evidence, and four publications described a high potential for bias, potentially influencing the validity of the results. Concerns about limited external generalizability were also raised. CONCLUSIONS: The literature review found evidence-related gaps that must be addressed with adequate measures. Our findings can serve as a basis for a plea for a more detailed examination of the quality of evidence in the DiGA context. AME Publishing Company 2023-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10643174/ /pubmed/38023782 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-23-17 Text en 2023 mHealth. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Dittrich, Florian
Mielitz, Annabelle
Pustozerov, Evgenii
Lawin, Dennis
von Jan, Ute
Albrecht, Urs-Vito
Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias
title Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias
title_full Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias
title_fullStr Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias
title_full_unstemmed Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias
title_short Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias
title_sort digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in germany—a systematic review for evidence and bias
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10643174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38023782
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-23-17
work_keys_str_mv AT dittrichflorian digitalhealthapplicationsfromagovernmentregulateddirectoryofreimbursablehealthappsingermanyasystematicreviewforevidenceandbias
AT mielitzannabelle digitalhealthapplicationsfromagovernmentregulateddirectoryofreimbursablehealthappsingermanyasystematicreviewforevidenceandbias
AT pustozerovevgenii digitalhealthapplicationsfromagovernmentregulateddirectoryofreimbursablehealthappsingermanyasystematicreviewforevidenceandbias
AT lawindennis digitalhealthapplicationsfromagovernmentregulateddirectoryofreimbursablehealthappsingermanyasystematicreviewforevidenceandbias
AT vonjanute digitalhealthapplicationsfromagovernmentregulateddirectoryofreimbursablehealthappsingermanyasystematicreviewforevidenceandbias
AT albrechtursvito digitalhealthapplicationsfromagovernmentregulateddirectoryofreimbursablehealthappsingermanyasystematicreviewforevidenceandbias