Zum Inhalt springen
Sponsorship
Die MVF-Knowledge-HubsFrisch aus der Forschung. Täglich aktualisiert!

Suchen Sie in Hunderten nationaler und internationaler Datenbanken nach dem neuesten Studienwissen der angegebenen Themengebiete und/oder lassen Sie sich werktäglich per Newsletter informieren. Die Newsfeeds werden auf deutsch übersetzt and nach Übertragbarkeit auf das deutsche Gesundheits-/Versorgungssystem ausgewählt:

Zu den Knowledge-Hubs

Digital health applications – requirements for their development, implementation and accompanying evaluation

Digital health applications (DiGA), both in the sense of the Digital Care Act of 2019 as patient-centric applications and in the sense of the use of telemedical solutions on the part of providers (e.g. teleconsultations, electronic files), are increasingly recognized as real clinical interventions (Kowatsch et al 2019). They have the potential to supplement and improve care and to make processes more effective (Eysenbach 2001; World Health Organization (WHO) 2015). Nevertheless, innovative digital applications in Germany, as in many other Western healthcare systems, are often not established in standard care (Huang et al. 2017). The dissemination of an innovation within an existing system is described in science with the term diffusion and the associated theory of diffusion of innovations (Rogers 2003). In practice, people tend to talk about the phenomenon of inability to scale up. Above all, this phenomenon underlines that it is a central problem for digital innovation projects to leave the test phase in the project context and to expand the sphere of action to include standard care (Häckl 2010; Gersch and Rüsike 2011).

Read more
First publication date: 30.03.2021

Abstract: Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen – Forderungen für deren Entwicklung, Implementierung und begleitende Evaluation

Despite their generally recognized potential, digital health applications (DiGA) continue to fail in Germany due to their sustainable integration into standard care. Below, in line with the requirements of the newly established BfArM Fast Track for the inclusion of DiGA in standard care, several concrete measures for standardizing the evaluation and implementation process are proposed and visualized using a prototype implementation process.

Literature

Årsand E./Demiris G. (2008): User-centered methods for designing patient-centric self-help tools. Inf Health Soc Care 33:158–169.Atkinson NL/Saperstein SL/Desmond SM/et al. (2009): Rural eHealth nutrition education for limited-income families: An interactive and user-centered design approach. J Med Internet Res 11:1–13. Bonn SE/Lof M./Ostenson CG./Trolle Lagerros Y (2019): App-technology to improve lifestyle behaviors among working adults - the Health Integrator study, a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 19:273–273.Brockes C./Grischott T./Dutkiewicz M./Schmidt-Weitmann S. (2017): Evaluation of the Education “Clinical Telemedicine/e-Health” in the Curriculum of Medical Students at the University of Zurich. Telemed JE Health 23:899–90Broens THF/Huis in't Veld RMHA/Vollenbroek-Hutten MMR/et al. (2007): Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study. J Telemed Telecare 13:303–309Dittmar R./Wohlgemuth WA (2009): Potentials and barriers of telemedicine in standard care. GG Wiss 16–26Edwards RW/Jumper-Thurman P./Plested BA/et al. (2000): Community readiness: Research to practice. J Community Psychol 28:291–307 Eysenbach G. (2001). What is e-health? J Med Internet Res 3Gersch M./Rüsike T. (2011): Diffusion barriers to innovative e-health applications in the German healthcare system. In: E-Health@Home (research-design-implementation)Häckl D. (2010): New technologies in healthcare: framework conditions and actors. Wiesbaden: GablerHarst L./Lantzsch H./Scheibe M. (2019): Theories Predicting End-User Acceptance of Telemedicine Use: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 21:e13117Harst L./Oswald S./Timpel P. (2019): Identifying and describing a model region to evaluate the impact of telemedicine. Eur J Public Health 29Huang F./Blaschke S./Lucas H. (2017): Beyond pilotitis: taking digital health interventions to the national level in China and Uganda. Glob Health 13:49Khatun F./Heywood AE/Ray PK/et al .(2015): Determinants of readiness to adopt mHealth in a rural community of Bangladesh. Int J Med Inf 84:847–856Kirkham JJ/Davis K./Altman DG/et al. (2017): Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLOS Med 14:e1002447Kowatsch T./Otto L./Harperink S./et al (2019): A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions. It - Inf Technol 61:253–263Lehmann B./Bitzer E.-M. (2019): From project to care – How do telemedical applications (not) get into everyday care? In: Pfannstiel MA, Da-Cruz P, Mehlich H (eds) Digital transformation of healthcare services VI: Impulses for research. Wiesbaden: Springer specialist media: 91 – 116McKay FH/Cheng C./Wright A./et al. (2018): Evaluating mobile phone applications for health behavior change: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 24:22–30Otto L. (2019): Implementing and scaling up telemedicine initiatives: Beyond user-centeredness. In: IEEE/ACS 16th International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA). Abu Dhabi, UAEPorter ME (2010): What Is Value in Health Care? N Engl J Med 363:2477–2481Rogers EM (2003): Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. New York: Free PressSchmitt J./Apfelbacher C./Spuls PI/et al. (2015): The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Roadmap: A Methodological Framework to Develop Core Sets of Outcome Measurements in Dermatology. J Invest Dermatol 135:24–30Timpel P./Oswald S./Schwarz PEH/Harst L. (2020): Mapping the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Interventions in Diabetes, Dyslipidemia, and Hypertension: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta -Analysis. J Med Internet Res 22:e16791 Williamson PR/Altman DG/Bagley H./et al. (2017): The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 18:280. World Health Organization (WHO) (2015): Global diffusion of eHealth. Making universal health coverage achievableYasmin F./Banu B./Zakir SM/et al (2016): Positive influence of short message service and voice call interventions on adherence and health outcomes in case of chronic disease care: a systematic review. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak 16:46. Zanaboni P./Ngangue P./Mbemba GIC./et al (2018): Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews. J Med Internet Res 20:e10202

Additional Information

Citation: Schlieter et al.: “Digital health applications – requirements for their development, implementation and accompanying evaluation”, in: “Monitor Healthcare Research” (02/21), pp. 76-80. http://doi.org/10.24945/MVF.02.21.1866-0533.2301

Plain Text

Digital health applications – requirements for their development, implementation and accompanying evaluation

Digital health applications (DiGA), both in the sense of the Digital Care Act of 2019 as patient-centric applications and in the sense of the use of telemedical solutions on the part of providers (e.g. teleconsultations, electronic files), are increasingly recognized as real clinical interventions (Kowatsch et al 2019). They have the potential to supplement and improve care and to make processes more effective (Eysenbach 2001; World Health Organization (WHO) 2015). Nevertheless, innovative digital applications in Germany, as in many other Western healthcare systems, are often not established in standard care (Huang et al. 2017). The dissemination of an innovation within an existing system is described in science with the term diffusion and the associated theory of diffusion of innovations (Rogers 2003). In practice, people tend to talk about the phenomenon of inability to scale up. Above all, this phenomenon underlines that it is a central problem for digital innovation projects to leave the test phase in the project context and to expand the sphere of action to include standard care (Häckl 2010; Gersch and Rüsike 2011).

>> Within statutory health insurance, with the entry into force of the law for better care through digitalization and innovation (Digitale-Versorgung-gesetz DVG) on December 19, 2019, the first prerequisites for the reimbursement of DiGA by standard care were created, thereby making market entry much easier . The prerequisite for reimbursement by statutory health insurance companies is the inclusion of DiGA in the DiGA directory, which is maintained by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM).
In order to actively promote the diffusion and scalability of digital innovations in the context of the German healthcare system, this article formulates concrete demands for future steps on the part of politics and self-administration. These are intended to help lower existing barriers to the development, implementation and accompanying evaluation of DiGA in the German healthcare system.
Requirements for the successful development, implementation and evaluation of digital health applications – a selection
Overview of the catalog of requirements
The demands are based on the scientific results of the young research group Care4Saxony, which examined the potential of DiGA within the three-year project period (07/2017-09/2020). In this article, selected requirements are presented against the background of existing approaches to evaluating and implementing digital applications in healthcare, such as the NICE framework of the British National Health Service (NHS).1 The requirements guide the evidence base for digital health applications improve and include the current adjustments to the procedure for their approval in Germany, ie the BfArM Fast Track.2
The demands are summarized in a catalog of demands and each contain a rationale that describes the scientific background and consequences that arise from the respective demand. In addition, each claim is accompanied by a warning about potential problems that may arise as a result of ignoring the claim.3
The subject areas of the list of requirements are summarized in Figure 1. This article presents four selected requirements that focus specifically on the development (1 - standardized approach), implementation (3 - supportive community) and evaluation (5 - evidence through usability and acceptance and 6 - evidence on effectiveness and benefits) of digital health applications . The necessary basic requirement is the appropriate qualification and further development of the digital skills of DiGA users
The focus is on what is required both in the context of medical studies and in the area of further training as well as in the training of medical and nursing professions. Without these skills, widespread acceptance and use of digital health applications will be more difficult to achieve (Brockes et al. 2017).

A uniform diffusion framework enables standardized procedures for implementation and evaluation
Requirement: A standardized and phased approach is required for the introduction and evaluation of DiGA. For this purpose, we propose the four stages “prototype, solution with first pilot test, broadly tested solution and solution on the market” (Broens et al. 2007) (see Fig. 2).
Rationale: Digital applications in healthcare arise in different environments and based on different prerequisites and preparatory work. Both for companies operating in this market environment and for those healthcare organizations that decide on the financing of such solutions (such as the Federal Joint Committee or the health insurance companies within the framework of selective contracts), it is difficult to ensure the conformity of the solutions with existing ones To evaluate regulations or the potential of the solutions (Dittmar and Wohlgemuth, 2009).
Warning: Unstructured development and implementation of digital healthcare applications can lead to critical project delay and a multitude of identical solutions (Lehmann and Bitzer, 2019). Identifying new approaches individually makes little economic sense and contradicts the development process of digital applications.

Regional structures support digital transformation
Demand: Regions and interest groups should support the implementation of DiGA in the healthcare system to the extent possible. By providing resources and administrative management, among other things, the implementation of DiGA and thus the digital transformation of healthcare within a region can be successful.
Rationale: Whether DiGAs are successful depends on various factors, including the motivation of the end users, the technical functionalities and the legal or financial framework (Otto 2019).
Regional and interest groups can play an additional supporting role towards end users within the applicable legal and financial framework (Edwards et al. 2000). We demand that regional communities and communities take on this role
satisfy. The support can be diverse and ranges from the provision of financial, human and technical resources to the organization of educational campaigns about the possibilities and advantages of DiGA (Atkinson et al. 2009). Existing tools such as the “Telemedicine Maturity Model in Communities”4 can explicitly help to identify specific support options for each community.
Community support should always occur when there is a regional need for DiGA. This need can be identified based on regional structural data (on sociodemographics, disease prevalence and care structures, technical and administrative infrastructure) and structured needs of regional actors (Khatun et al. 2015; Harst et al. 2019b).
Warning: Regional (supply) structures, administrative processes and networks should support the implementation of DiGA, otherwise there is a risk of the population's lack of acceptance of the applications and the risk of implementing unsuitable applications.

Acceptance, usability and the subjective perception of usefulness determine the effectiveness of DiGA
Requirement: Both the design and usability of an application, as well as the preferences of patients and service providers, should be examined during the development phase and should also be seen as evidence for a sustainably successful implementation (Årsand and Demiris, 2008).
Rationale: In addition to clinical parameters as traditional measures of the effectiveness of an intervention, acceptance or the subjective perception of usefulness and ease of use by end users, i.e. patients or service providers, are also important drivers for long-term use of telemedicine applications (Harst et al. 2019a ). In this respect they differ, at least in part, from pharmacological interventions, although here too a lack of willingness to take them regularly can influence the effect. Outcomes such as health-related quality of life, as provided in the BfArM Fast Track as relevant indicators for the effectiveness of DiGA, are based on this individual perception of the usefulness of an application (Bonn et al. 2019).
Therefore, there is a need for a standardized user-centered development process for digital applications in healthcare that is compliant with existing ISO standards such as ISO 9241 (“Ergonomics of human-system interaction”). Part of this process should be a continuous evaluation of the acceptance and usability of an application before, during and after its implementation.
Warning: Taking into account the patient's subjective assessment and perception is a relevant change, especially from the perspective of evidence-based medicine (EbM), as cumbersome operation and functionalities that do not correspond to the users' preferences are important in evaluating the effectiveness of telemedicine applications in particular can act as disruptive factors. As a result, the effect of the DiGA may be distorted despite the intervention components being evidence-based.

The development and consensus of Core Outcome Sets (COS) in telemedicine studies facilitate the evaluation of DiGA
Requirement: Following on from the requirement described above, core outcome sets are still required to ensure the collection of patient-relevant endpoints and to increase the comparability of study results. Therefore, in the evaluation of DiGA, in addition to endpoints for measuring clinical effectiveness, Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO for short) and endpoints for mapping patient experiences (Patient Reported Experiences, PRE for short) should also be collected in a regular and standardized manner.
Rationale: Digital health applications are often designed as complex and/or multimodal interventions, making causal assessment of effectiveness difficult (Yasmin et al. 2016). There is currently no “best practice approach” to evaluate digital health applications (McKay et al. 2018; Zanaboni et al. 2018). Comparing the effectiveness of digital health applications is made even more difficult by the use of heterogeneous outcomes.
Evidence syntheses show that the effectiveness of digital health applications depends on patient characteristics in terms of their clinical health status, but also on their technology acceptance and individual needs for social support (Harst et al. 2019a; Timpel et al. 2020). Such care, which is geared towards the respective benefits for the patient, follows the principles of “value-based healthcare” (Porter 2010).
The standardized use of relevant outcomes has the potential to sustainably improve the evidence base for digital applications in healthcare. Core outcome sets can contribute to improved comparability of study results by standardizing endpoints (Schmitt et al. 2015; Williamson et al. 2017; Kirkham et al. 2017). This requires the development of new or expansion of existing core outcome sets for the evaluation of digital applications in healthcare in order to generate evidence beyond pure clinical effectiveness.
Warning: An exclusive focus on clinical effectiveness neglects relevant domains of effectiveness, in particular the perception of users and changes in their illness behavior (reality of care). In addition, when collecting heterogeneous outcomes, there is a risk that study results can only be compared to a limited extent, making it more difficult to derive evidence-based recommendations for DiGA.
Summary
The article addresses the challenge of perpetuating DiGA. Using a list of requirements, points were identified that show the need for action in dealing with and evaluating DiGA. For example, it was found that user acceptance and their subjective perception of benefits are demonstrably just as important for the development and diffusion of digital health applications as the collection of primarily medical endpoints, which corresponds to the specific design of the BfArM Fast Track.
The demands therefore also provide assistance and guidance for the sustainable development of digital applications in the healthcare sector. For this purpose, research needs in the area of core outcome sets, regional maturity of communities and the patient-centered benefit assessment of digital health applications are described, which can contribute to improving the evidence base. The diffusion framework for DiGA shown in Fig. 2 summarizes all of these requirements and visualizes the ideal
typical development and diffusion process and is intended to help existing and future DiGA to be implemented sustainably into standard care. <<

1. NICE stands for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
2. https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Service/Beratungsverfahren/DiGA-Leitfaden.pdf
3. The full catalog of demands in its long version can be found online at http://care4saxony.de/?page_id=2731
4. http://care4saxony.de/?p=3324

Do you want to leave us already?

Subscribe to our newsletter quickly. Then you can be sure that you won't miss anything.