Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41494179›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2026

General Practitioners' Perspectives on Digital Health Applications for Mental Disorders and Their Prescribing Behavior: Mixed Methods Study.

Sandy Scheibe, Sandra Salm, Karola Mergenthal, Deborah Engesser, Esther Stalujanis, Susanne Singer, Pascal Kemmerer, Lena Dotzauer, Karen Voigt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Sandy ScheibeDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany, 49 351-45889240, 49 351-4588836.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3996-5342
Sandra SalmInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1392-0140
Karola MergenthalInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0534-9389
Deborah EngesserDivision of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8377-1553
Esther StalujanisDivision of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-1629
Susanne SingerDivision of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5784-7964
Pascal KemmererDivision of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7128-6451
Lena DotzauerDivision of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2229-8405
Karen VoigtDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany, 49 351-45889240, 49 351-4588836.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2246-7368

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The high number of mental disorders poses challenges for health care systems. In 2020, digital health applications (DHAs) were introduced in Germany as a new form of health care financed by the statutory health insurance. They aim to detect, monitor, treat, or alleviate disease, injury, or disability. DHAs for mental disorders (DHA-MD) intend to improve outpatient care for patients with mental disorders. However, evidence on general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives on DHA-MD and their prescribing behavior is limited. Objective: This study aimed to analyze GPs' perspectives on DHA-MD and their prescribing behavior in the care of patients with mental disorders. Methods: A mixed methods study was conducted (January-October 2024), including a Germany-wide online survey and qualitative interviews with GPs and medical assistants (MAs). Sampling was conducted in collaboration with German research practice networks, which distributed the study invitation to their affiliated GPs. The questionnaire as well as the interview guides for GPs and MAs was developed by the study team according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Descriptive analyses of prescribing behavior and perceived need (measured on an 11-point scale) for DHA-MD were conducted, followed by multivariate regression analyses to identify predictors of prescribing behavior and perceived need for DHA-MD. The interviews with GPs and MAs were analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Results: A sample of 149 GPs participated, and 12 GPs as well as 5 MAs were interviewed. The median prescription frequency of DHA-MD per quarter was 1, whereas the median estimated need was 3. Working in a half digitized and half paper-based practice (odds ratio 5.133, 95% CI 1.695-15.542) as well as working in a completely digitized practice (odds ratio 3.006, 95% CI 1.296-6.969) positively predicted the prescribing behavior. The duration of GPs' medical practice (b=-0.057; P=.01) negatively predicted the perceived need, while working in a group practice (b=0.980; P=.02) positively predicted the perceived need for DHA-MD. In the interviews, GPs and MAs reported that they valued DHA-MD as a temporary or supplementary option for bridging waiting times for psychotherapy and considered their effectiveness to be highly dependent on indication and patient adherence. Reported barriers of GPs according to DHA-MD included lacking knowledge about DHA-MD, missing effectiveness studies, and difficulties integrating them into existing care processes. Conclusions: GPs are reluctant to prescribe DHA-MD, as the need is considered to be low and their use is primarily seen as a temporary or supplementary treatment option rather than a stand-alone intervention. There are significant reasons for rejection and barriers that hinder prescription in primary care. Addressing these barriers and involving GPs as well as patients in future research are essential for the development of DHA-MD.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PractitionersMental DisordersPractice Patterns, Physicians'TelemedicineAdultDigital HealthFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesdigital healthgeneral practitionersmental healthmixed methodsmobile appsprimary care

Identifiers

PMID41494179
PMCPMC12774394

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.