Author:
Malinka Christin,Dittrich Florian,Back David Alexander,Ansorg Jörg,von Jan Ute,Albrecht Urs-Vito
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Although apps are becoming increasingly relevant in healthcare, there is limited knowledge about how healthcare professionals perceive “quality” in this context and how quality principles that can aid them in assessing health-related apps may be prioritised.
The objective was to investigate physicians’ views of predefined (general) quality principles for health apps and to determine whether a ranking algorithm applied to the acquired data can provide stable results against various demographic influences and may thus be appropriate for prioritisation.
Methods
Participants of an online survey of members of two German professional orthopaedics associations conducted between 02/12/2019 and 02/01/2020 were asked about their perception of a set of quality principles for health apps (i.e., “practicality,” “risk adequacy,” “ethical soundness,” “legal conformity,” “content validity,” “technical adequacy,” “usability,” “resource efficiency,” and “transparency”). Structured as a Kano survey, for each principle, there were questions about its perceived relevance and opinions regarding the presence or absence of corresponding characteristics. The available data were evaluated descriptively, and a newly developed method for prioritisation of the principles was applied overall and to different demographic strata (for validation).
Results
Three hundred eighty-two datasets from 9503 participants were evaluated. Legal conformity, content validity, and risk adequacy filled ranks one to three, followed by practicability, ethical soundness, and usability (ranks 4 to 6). Technical adequacy, transparency, and resource efficiency ranked last (ranks 7 to 9). The ranking based on the proposed method was relatively stable, irrespective of demographic factors. The principles were seen as essential, with one exception (“resource efficiency”). Only those with little to no interest in digitisation (22/382, 5.8%) rated the nine principles indifferently.
Conclusions
The specified quality principles and their prioritisation can lay a foundation for future assessments of apps in the medical field. Professional societies build upon this to highlight opportunities for digital transformations in medicine and encourage their members to participate.
Funder
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Rheumatology
Reference42 articles.
1. Bundestag D. Gesetz für eine bessere Versorgung durch Digitalisierung und Innovation (Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz - DVG). Fassung vom 08.11.2019, verabschiedet im Bundesrat am 29.11.2019. Bundesrat. 2019; Available from: https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2019/0501-0600/557-19.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1.
2. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. REGULATION (EU) 2017/745 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union. 2017. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745
3. Dittrich F, Albrecht U-V, von Jan U, Malinka C, Ansorg J, Jung J, et al. The digital healthcare act - a turning point in the German digitisation strategy? Z Orthop Unfall. 2021;159(3):259–65. PMID: 32365397. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1141-4274.
4. German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). DiGA-Verzeichnis. 2022. Available from: https://diga.bfarm.de/de/verzeichnis
5. Albrecht U-V. Chancen und Risiken von Gesundheits-Apps (CHARISMHA); engl. Chances and Risks of Mobile Health Apps (CHARISMHA). Albrecht U-V, editor. Hannover: Medizinische Hochschule Hannover; 2016. Available from: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:084-16040811153
Cited by
1 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