Author:
Mäder Melanie,Timpel Patrick,Schönfelder Tonio,Militzer-Horstmann Carsta,Scheibe Sandy,Heinrich Ria,Häckl Dennis
Abstract
Abstract
Background
With its digital health application (DiGA)-system, Germany is considered one of Europe's pioneers in the field of evidence-based digital health. Incorporating DiGA into standard medical care must be based on evidence-based success factors; however, a comprehensive overview of the evidence required of scientific studies for their approval is lacking.
Objective
The study aims to, (1) identify specific requirements defined by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (German: Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel- und Medizinprodukte; BfArM) to design adequate studies, proving a positive healthcare effect, and (2) to assess the evidence given for applications permanently listed in the DiGA directory.
Methods
A multi-step approach was used: (1) identification of the evidence requirements for applications permanently listed in the DiGA directory, (2) identification of the evidence available supporting them.
Results
All DiGA permanently listed in the DiGA directory (13 applications) are included in the formal analysis. Most DiGA addressed mental health (n = 7), and can be prescribed for one or two indications (n = 10). All permanently listed DiGA have demonstrated their positive healthcare effect through a medical benefit, and most of them provide evidence for one defined primary endpoint. All DiGA manufacturers conducted a randomized controlled trial.
Discussion
It is striking that— although patient-relevant structural and procedural improvements show high potential for improving care, especially in terms of processes — all DiGA have provided a positive care effect via a medical benefit. Although BfArM accepts study designs with a lower level of evidence for the proof of a positive healthcare effect, all manufacturers conducted a study with a high level of evidence.
Conclusion
The results of this analysis indicate that permanently listed DiGA meet higher standards than required by the guideline.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference65 articles.
1. Essén A, Stern AD, Haase CB, et al. Health app policy: international comparison of nine countries’ approaches. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00573-1.
2. Giebel GD, Speckemeier C, Abels C, et al. Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2022;11(4):e32702. https://doi.org/10.2196/32702.
3. BfArM. Das Fast-Track-Verfahren für digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen (DiGA) nach § 139e SGB V: Ein Leitfaden für Hersteller, Leistungserbringer und Anwender. 2022. Available at https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Medizinprodukte/diga_leitfaden.html.
4. Gordon WJ, Landman A, Zhang H, et al. Beyond validation: getting health apps into clinical practice. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0212-z.
5. WHO. Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025 2021. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/344249/9789240020924-eng.pdf. Accessed 11 July, 2022.
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献