ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
Rating analysis and BERTopic modeling of consumer versus regulated mHealth app reviews in Germany.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Users Say About Reimbursable Digital Therapeutics in Germany: Large-Scale App Store Review Analysis Using a Large Language Model.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- A scoping review on using real-world data to evaluate the effectiveness of mHealth applications.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring general practitioners' perspectives on the use and benefits of digital health applications for mental disorders in primary care: a mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Assessing patient perceptions of off-label cannabidiol use for insomnia through sentiment analysis.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
- Understanding resilience in medical interns through ecological momentary assessments, predictive modelling, and topic analysis.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- [Digital health applications for depressive disorders in Germany : A narrative review of the evidence and integration into treatment].Der Nervenarzt · 2025Review
- Employee Preference and Use of Employee Mental Health Programs: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence tools in supporting healthcare professionals for tailored patient care.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Think-Aloud Testing of a Companion App for Colonoscopy Examinations: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Mobile Applications for Longitudinal Data Collection: Web-based Survey Study of Former Intensive Care Patients.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of mHealth applications for depression in Germany using a Markov cohort simulation.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- A transparent and standardized performance measurement platform is needed for on-prescription digital health apps to enable ongoing performance monitoring.PLOS digital health · 2024Review
- Topic identification and content analysis of internet medical policies under the background of Healthy China 2030.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Predicting ICU Readmission from Electronic Health Records via BERTopic with Long Short Term Memory Network Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Experts' views on the implementation of digital interventions for eating disorders: a Delphi study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Digital Health Applications (DiGAs) on a Fast Track: Insights From a Data-Driven Analysis of Prescribable Digital Therapeutics in Germany From 2020 to Mid-2024.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Discovering patterns and trends in customer service technologies patents using large language model.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The three-year evolution of Germany's Digital Therapeutics reimbursement program and its path forward.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- Exploring public opinion on health effects of prepared dishes in China through social media comments.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Germany introduced prescription-based mobile health (mHealth) apps in October 2020, becoming the first country to offer them fully reimbursed by health insurance. These regulated apps, known as DiGAs, undergo a rigorous approval process similar to pharmaceuticals, including data protection measures and sometimes clinical trials. This study compares the user experience of DiGAs with non-prescription mHealth apps in Germany, analyzing both average app store ratings and written reviews. Our study pioneers the use of BERTopic for sentiment analysis and topic modeling in the mHealth research domain. The dataset comprises 15 DiGAs and 50 comparable apps, totaling 17,588 German-language reviews. Results reveal that DiGAs receive higher contemporary ratings than non-regulated apps (Android: 3.82 vs. 3.77; iOS: 3.78 vs. 3.53; p < 0.01; non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test). Key factors contributing to positive user experience with DiGAs are customer service and personalization (15%) and ease of use (13%). However, challenges for DiGAs include software bugs (24%) and a cumbersome registration process (20%). Negative user reviews highlight concerns about therapy effectiveness (11%). Excessive pricing is the main concern for the non-regulated group (27%). Data privacy and security receive limited attention from users (DiGAs: 0.5%; comparators: 2%). In conclusion, DiGAs are generally perceived positively based on ratings and sentiment analysis of reviews. However, addressing pricing concerns in the non-regulated mHealth sector is crucial. Integrating user experience evaluation into the review process could improve adherence and health outcomes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.