Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39208415›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

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.

Moritz Goeldner, Sara Gehder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Innovations to improve outcomes and uptake of psychotherapies for mental disorders: a state-of-the-art review.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Moritz GoeldnerWorking Group for Data-Driven Innovation, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8584-8080
Sara GehderWorking Group for Data-Driven Innovation, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-3193-3521

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to analyze the rapidly evolving ecosystem of digital health applications (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendung; DiGAs) in Germany, spurred by the 2019 Digital Healthcare Act. With over 73 million people in Germany now having access to DiGAs, these prescribable digital health apps and web-based applications represent a substantial stride in health care modernization, supporting both patients and health care providers with digital solutions for disease management and care improvement.

objectiveThrough a data-driven approach, this research aimed to unpack the complexities of DiGA market dynamics, economic factors, and clinical evidence, offering insights into their impact over the past years.

methodsThe analysis draws from a range of public data sources, including the DiGA directory, statutory health insurance reports, app store feedback, and clinical study results.

resultsAs of July 1, 2024, there are 56 DiGAs listed by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte), divided into 35 permanently and 21 preliminarily listed applications. Our findings reveal that a majority of DiGAs extend beyond the intended 1-year period to achieve permanent listing, reflecting the extensive effort required to demonstrate clinical efficacy. Economic analysis uncovered a dynamic pricing landscape, with initial prices ranging from approximately €200 to €700 (€1=US $1.07), averaging at a median of €514 for a 3-month DiGA prescription. Following negotiations or arbitration board decisions, prices typically see a 50% reduction, settling at a median of €221. Prescription data offer valuable insights into DiGA acceptance, with total prescriptions jumping from around 41,000 in the first period to 209,000 in the latest reporting period. The analysis of the top 15 DiGAs, representing 82% of the total prescriptions, shows that these best-performing apps receive from a minimum of 8 to a maximum of 77 daily prescriptions, with native apps and early market entrants achieving higher rates. Clinical evidence from all 35 permanently listed DiGAs indicates a uniform preference for randomized controlled trials to validate primary end points, with no noteworthy use of alternative study designs encouraged in the Digital Healthcare Act and related regulations. Moreover, all evaluated DiGAs focused on medical benefits, with health status improvement as a key end point, suggesting an underuse of patient-relevant structural and procedural improvement in demonstrating health care impact.

conclusionsThis study highlights the growth and challenges within the DiGA sector, suggesting areas for future research, such as the exploration of new study designs and the potential impact of patient-relevant structural and procedural improvements. For DiGA manufacturers, the strategic advantage of early market entry is emphasized. Overall, this paper underscores the evolving landscape of digital health, advocating for a nuanced understanding of digital health technology integration in Germany and beyond.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsDigital HealthGermanyHumansTelemedicineclinical evidencedata-driven analysisDiGAdigital health applicationdigital health care acthealth economicsmedical benefitpatient-relevant structural and procedural improvementspositive care effectpSVV

Identifiers

PMID39208415
PMCPMC11393499

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.