What Makes a Quality Health App-Developing a Global Research-Based Health App Quality Assessment Framework for CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2: Delphi Study.

COVID-19 Delphi technique assessment framework health app mHealth mobile health quality assessment standard standardization wellness app

Journal

JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Jan 2023
Historique:
received: 28 10 2022
accepted: 19 12 2022
revised: 16 12 2022
pubmed: 21 12 2022
medline: 21 12 2022
entrez: 20 12 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. This study aimed to create a useful, globally applicable, trustworthy, and usable framework to assess health app quality. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to create a useful, globally applicable, trustworthy, and usable framework to assess health app quality.
METHODS 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 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 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36538379
pii: v7i1e43905
doi: 10.2196/43905
pmc: PMC9872976
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e43905

Informations de copyright

©Petra Hoogendoorn, Anke Versluis, Sanne van Kampen, Charles McCay, Matt Leahy, Marlou Bijlsma, Stefano Bonacina, Tobias Bonten, Marie-José Bonthuis, Anouk Butterlin, Koen Cobbaert, Thea Duijnhoven, Cynthia Hallensleben, Stuart Harrison, Mark Hastenteufel, Terhi Holappa, Ben Kokx, Birgit Morlion, Norbert Pauli, Frank Ploeg, Mark Salmon, Kyma Schnoor, Mary Sharp, Pier Angelo Sottile, Alpo Värri, Patricia Williams, Georg Heidenreich, Nicholas Oughtibridge, Robert Stegwee, Niels H Chavannes. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 23.01.2023.

Références

Palliat Med. 2017 Sep;31(8):684-706
pubmed: 28190381
Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1183-1192
pubmed: 32770165
Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1180-1181
pubmed: 32278374
Front Public Health. 2020 Sep 22;8:457
pubmed: 33072683
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Mar;21(3):e58-e63
pubmed: 33075284
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 May 02;5(5):e60
pubmed: 28465282
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 May 13;2:38
pubmed: 31304384
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Mar 3;8(3):e13057
pubmed: 32130169
Med 2 0. 2015 Dec 31;4(2):e4
pubmed: 26720310
JAMA. 2018 Nov 20;320(19):1975-1976
pubmed: 30326025
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 9;22(12):e23170
pubmed: 33197234
NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Mar 18;5(1):31
pubmed: 35304561

Auteurs

Petra Hoogendoorn (P)

National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Anke Versluis (A)

National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Sanne van Kampen (S)

National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Charles McCay (C)

Ramsey Systems Ltd, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom.

Matt Leahy (M)

Assessment Team, ORCHA Health Ltd, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Marlou Bijlsma (M)

Healthcare, Royal Netherlands Standardization Institute, Delft, Netherlands.

Stefano Bonacina (S)

Health Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Tobias Bonten (T)

National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Marie-José Bonthuis (MJ)

Privacy1 B.V., Groningen, Netherlands.

Anouk Butterlin (A)

Projects, Accessibility Foundation, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Koen Cobbaert (K)

European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry, Brussels, Belgium.
Quality, Standards and Regulations, Innovation and Strategy, Philips Belgium Commercial N.V., Brussels, Belgium.

Thea Duijnhoven (T)

Understandable Information and Digital Healthcare, Pharos - Dutch Center of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Cynthia Hallensleben (C)

National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Stuart Harrison (S)

ETHOS Ltd, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Mark Hastenteufel (M)

Institute for Software Technology and Data Communication, Hochschule Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

Terhi Holappa (T)

Technical Committee 251 Health informatics, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
USBIMED, Oulu, Finland.

Ben Kokx (B)

Product Security, Group Security, Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Best, Netherlands.

Birgit Morlion (B)

Unit eHealth, Well-Being and Ageing, Directorate‑General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.

Norbert Pauli (N)

Draeger Integrated System Management, Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA, Lübeck, Germany.

Frank Ploeg (F)

Mobile Health Work Group, Health Level Seven, Brussels, Belgium.
Enterprise Architecture, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Mark Salmon (M)

Science, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Kyma Schnoor (K)

National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Mary Sharp (M)

School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Pier Angelo Sottile (PA)

Technical Committee 251 Health informatics, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Technical Committee 527 Health informatics, Ente Italiano di Normazione, Milan, Italy.
Mexedia S.p.A. SB, Rome, Italy.

Alpo Värri (A)

Technical Committee 251 Health informatics, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.

Patricia Williams (P)

Flinders Digital Health Research Center, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Georg Heidenreich (G)

Technical Committee 215 Health informatics, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Subcommittee 62A Common aspects of medical equipment, software, and systems, International Electronical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland.
Healthcare IT Standards, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.

Nicholas Oughtibridge (N)

Technical Committee 215 Health informatics, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Subcommittee 62A Common aspects of medical equipment, software, and systems, International Electronical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland.
NHS Transformation, NHS England, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Robert Stegwee (R)

Technical Committee 251 Health informatics, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.

Niels H Chavannes (NH)

National eHealth Living Lab, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH