Physicians' Attitudes Toward Prescribable mHealth Apps and Implications for Adoption in Germany: Mixed Methods Study.
adoption
apps
digital health
general practitioners
mHealth
mobile health
physicians
technology acceptance
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 11 2021
23 11 2021
Historique:
received:
23
08
2021
accepted:
02
10
2021
revised:
28
09
2021
entrez:
24
11
2021
pubmed:
25
11
2021
medline:
2
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In October 2020, Germany became the first country, worldwide, to approve certain mobile health (mHealth) apps, referred to as DiGA (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen, in German, meaning digital health applications), for prescription with costs covered by standard statutory health insurance. Yet, this option has only been used to a limited extent so far. The aim of this study was to investigate physicians' and psychotherapists' current attitudes toward mHealth apps, barriers to adoption, and potential remedies. We conducted a two-stage sequential mixed methods study. In phase one, semistructured interviews were conducted with physicians and psychotherapists for questionnaire design. In phase two, an online survey was conducted among general practitioners, physicians, and psychotherapists. A total of 1308 survey responses by mostly outpatient-care general practitioners, physicians, and psychotherapists from across Germany who could prescribe DiGA were recorded, making this the largest study on mHealth prescriptions to date. A total of 62.1% (807/1299) of respondents supported the opportunity to prescribe DiGA. Improved adherence (997/1294, 77.0%), health literacy (842/1294, 65.1%), and disease management (783/1294, 60.5%) were most frequently seen as benefits of DiGA. However, only 30.3% (393/1299) of respondents planned to prescribe DiGA, varying greatly by medical specialty. Professionals are still facing substantial barriers, such as insufficient information (1135/1295, 87.6%), reimbursement for DiGA-related medical services (716/1299, 55.1%), medical evidence (712/1298, 54.9%), legal uncertainties (680/1299, 52.3%), and technological uncertainties (658/1299, 50.7%). To support professionals who are unsure of prescribing DiGA, extended information campaigns (1104/1297, 85.1%) as well as recommendations from medical associations (1041/1297, 80.3%) and medical colleagues (1024/1297, 79.0%) were seen as the most impactful remedies. To realize the benefits from DiGA through increased adoption, additional information sharing about DiGA from trusted bodies, reimbursement for DiGA-related medical services, and further medical evidence are recommended.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In October 2020, Germany became the first country, worldwide, to approve certain mobile health (mHealth) apps, referred to as DiGA (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen, in German, meaning digital health applications), for prescription with costs covered by standard statutory health insurance. Yet, this option has only been used to a limited extent so far.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate physicians' and psychotherapists' current attitudes toward mHealth apps, barriers to adoption, and potential remedies.
METHODS
We conducted a two-stage sequential mixed methods study. In phase one, semistructured interviews were conducted with physicians and psychotherapists for questionnaire design. In phase two, an online survey was conducted among general practitioners, physicians, and psychotherapists.
RESULTS
A total of 1308 survey responses by mostly outpatient-care general practitioners, physicians, and psychotherapists from across Germany who could prescribe DiGA were recorded, making this the largest study on mHealth prescriptions to date. A total of 62.1% (807/1299) of respondents supported the opportunity to prescribe DiGA. Improved adherence (997/1294, 77.0%), health literacy (842/1294, 65.1%), and disease management (783/1294, 60.5%) were most frequently seen as benefits of DiGA. However, only 30.3% (393/1299) of respondents planned to prescribe DiGA, varying greatly by medical specialty. Professionals are still facing substantial barriers, such as insufficient information (1135/1295, 87.6%), reimbursement for DiGA-related medical services (716/1299, 55.1%), medical evidence (712/1298, 54.9%), legal uncertainties (680/1299, 52.3%), and technological uncertainties (658/1299, 50.7%). To support professionals who are unsure of prescribing DiGA, extended information campaigns (1104/1297, 85.1%) as well as recommendations from medical associations (1041/1297, 80.3%) and medical colleagues (1024/1297, 79.0%) were seen as the most impactful remedies.
CONCLUSIONS
To realize the benefits from DiGA through increased adoption, additional information sharing about DiGA from trusted bodies, reimbursement for DiGA-related medical services, and further medical evidence are recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34817385
pii: v9i11e33012
doi: 10.2196/33012
pmc: PMC8663495
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e33012Informations de copyright
©Florian Dahlhausen, Maximillian Zinner, Linn Bieske, Jan P Ehlers, Philip Boehme, Leonard Fehring. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 23.11.2021.
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Dec 21;5(12):e193
pubmed: 29269336
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jan 17;6(1):e23
pubmed: 29343463
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jun 3;7(6):e13199
pubmed: 31199343
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Oct 30;12:121
pubmed: 23110712
J Med Syst. 2012 Feb;36(1):241-77
pubmed: 20703721
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2017 Aug;30(4):439-452
pubmed: 28116773
Evid Based Ment Health. 2018 Aug;21(3):116-119
pubmed: 29871870
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Aug;34(8):1407-17
pubmed: 26220668
J Med Internet Res. 2016 May 16;18(5):e97
pubmed: 27185295
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2019 May;47(3):287-302
pubmed: 30185239
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 2;12(2):e0170581
pubmed: 28152012
J Clin Nurs. 2014 Jan;23(1-2):132-44
pubmed: 23451899
J Health Commun. 2018;23(10-11):909-955
pubmed: 30449261
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014 Oct 21;2(4):e42
pubmed: 25338094
Psychol Med. 2017 Jan;47(1):67-80
pubmed: 27655039
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 6;8(7):e18072
pubmed: 32442132
Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Aug;71(2):439-41
pubmed: 12111669
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 06;11(4):e0153173
pubmed: 27049525
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Feb 20;8(2):e15935
pubmed: 32130167
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Sep 05;19(9):e300
pubmed: 28874336
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Feb 24;17(2):e52
pubmed: 25803266
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Aug 29;6(8):e172
pubmed: 30158101
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 30;15(1):e0228100
pubmed: 31999743
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jan;23(1):212-20
pubmed: 26078410
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Aug 02;6(8):e164
pubmed: 30072362
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;89(9):970-976
pubmed: 29549193
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Jul 10;3:94
pubmed: 32685700
Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A422-3
pubmed: 27201078
Health Technol (Berl). 2015;5(1):35-43
pubmed: 26097799
Surv Ophthalmol. 2020 Mar - Apr;65(2):250-262
pubmed: 31541618