Orthopaedic and trauma surgeons’ prioritisation of app quality principles based on their demographic background

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3