Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34817385›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Physicians' Attitudes Toward Prescribable mHealth Apps and Implications for Adoption in Germany: Mixed Methods Study.

Florian Dahlhausen, Maximillian Zinner, Linn Bieske, Jan P Ehlers, Philip Boehme, Leonard Fehring

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

89 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Florian DahlhausenDidactics and Educational Research in Health Care, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3730-8992
Maximillian ZinnerDidactics and Educational Research in Health Care, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9416-6113
Linn BieskeFaculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8777-3705
Jan P EhlersDidactics and Educational Research in Health Care, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6306-4173
Philip BoehmeFaculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8906-4753
Leonard FehringFaculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3322-3724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate physicians' and psychotherapists' current attitudes toward mHealth apps, barriers to adoption, and potential remedies.

methodsWe 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsTo 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.

Indexed as

General PractitionersMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineAttitudeGermanyHumansadoptionappsdigital healthgeneral practitionersmHealthmobile healthphysicianstechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID34817385
PMCPMC8663495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.