Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42235549›Full record

ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2026

[Access to Digital Health Applications - Prescription by Physicians vs Patient Requests Made Directly to Health Insurance Companies: Interviews with Experts].

Godwin Giebel, Klemens Höfer, Pascal Raszke, Jürgen Wasem, Anna Bußmann, Sarah Schlierenkamp, Michael Minor, Carsten Volland, Udo Schneider, Enno Maaß and 2 more

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Godwin GiebelLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Klemens HöferLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Pascal RaszkeLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jürgen WasemLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Anna BußmannEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement GmbH, Essen, Germany.
Sarah SchlierenkampEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement GmbH, Essen, Germany.
Michael MinorEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement GmbH, Essen, Germany.
Carsten VollandEssener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement GmbH, Essen, Germany.
Udo SchneiderVersorgungsmanagement, Techniker Krankenkasse, Hamburg, Germany.
Enno MaaßDeutsche Psychotherapeuten Vereinigung (DPtV), Berlin, Germany.
Josepha KatzmannDeutsche Psychotherapeuten Vereinigung (DPtV), Berlin, Germany.
Carina AbelsLehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In Germany, Digital Health Applications (DiGA) can be prescribed for mental illnesses since 2020. Patients with statutory health insurance can access DiGA in two different ways. They can either be prescribed by a physician or psychotherapist or patients can request them directly from their health insurance company. The aim of the present study was to shed light on the different ways of access especially with regard to their actual implementation. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with experts to investigate the current care situation with DiGA in the context of mental illnesses. The experts were representatives of patients, physicians and psychotherapists, statutory health insurance companies and DiGA manufacturers. The interviews were conducted online, recorded and transcribed. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed with MAXQDA. Results: A total of 13 expert interviews were conducted. Content analysis revealed three main topics: 1) relevance of direct authorization by the health insurance company, 2) implementation of direct authorization by the health insurance company, and 3) advantages and disadvantages of direct access. While direct access via the health insurance company played a minor role quantitatively, it has potential advantages such as a low threshold access or a greater patient autonomy. Disadvantages were seen in the transfer of therapeutic sovereignty from physicians and psychotherapists towards the health insurance companies. Problems were also seen in the lack of comprehensive therapy monitoring, inadequate diagnosis without or with inadequate consideration of contraindications, and additional effort on the part of health insurance companies. Conclusion: The direct application for statutory health insurance-funded services from health insurance companies marks a new approach in the German health care system. While there are good arguments for and against patient self-referral, the current implementation needs to be scrutinized. Because of the need for a current indication and the possible exclusion of contraindications, patients usually have to visit a doctor or psychotherapist anyway, which significantly limits the benefits. Under the current conditions, the way of prescription is usually associated with fewer problems.

Indexed as

Electronic PrescribingHealth Services AccessibilityInsurance, HealthMental DisordersNational Health ProgramsPhysiciansDigital HealthGermanyHumans

Identifiers

PMID42235549
PMCPMC13345681

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.