Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42849059›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2026

What Users Say About Reimbursable Digital Therapeutics in Germany: Large-Scale App Store Review Analysis Using a Large Language Model.

Benjamin Kinast, Henrik Rohde, Björn Schreiweis, Hannes Ulrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Benjamin KinastInstitute for Medical Informatics and Artificial Intelligence, Kiel University and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kaistrasse 101, Kiel, DE-24105, Germany, +49 431 500 31611.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2554-4381
Henrik RohdeInstitute for Medical Informatics and Artificial Intelligence, Kiel University and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kaistrasse 101, Kiel, DE-24105, Germany, +49 431 500 31611.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-8021-0151
Björn SchreiweisInstitute for Medical Informatics and Artificial Intelligence, Kiel University and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kaistrasse 101, Kiel, DE-24105, Germany, +49 431 500 31611.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1748-1563
Hannes UlrichInstitute for Medical Informatics and Artificial Intelligence, Kiel University and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kaistrasse 101, Kiel, DE-24105, Germany, +49 431 500 31611.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8349-6798

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In 2019, Germany introduced a unique regulatory framework for digital therapeutics (DTx), termed digital health applications (DiGAs) in Germany, with the goal of integrating evidence-based DTx into statutory health care. DTx are eligible for reimbursement by statutory health insurance if manufacturers demonstrate positive health care effects, such as improved health status or health literacy, in a controlled study setting. Although regulatory evaluation primarily relies on manufacturer-conducted studies, these studies do not fully capture how users experience and use DiGAs in everyday life. Objective: The study aims to systematically characterize user experiences with reimbursable DiGAs by analyzing the sentiment and thematic content in publicly available app store reviews at scale to identify recurring patterns of positive and negative feedback across regulatory-relevant quality dimensions. Methods: All DiGAs with publicly available mobile app reviews were identified via the official German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) directory. User reviews were extracted from the German Apple App Store and Google Play Store using a tailored Python script. Reviews were then processed using GPT-4o, which extracted up to 5 core statements per review and assigned each a sentiment label (positive, neutral, or negative) and one of ten predefined thematic categories to each statement: content, technology, cost and reimbursement, login and registration, prescription and approval, user experience and design, support, tracking and documentation, effectiveness, and overall impression, all derived from the regulatory and quality criteria applicable to DiGA certification. Classification quality was assessed through manual validation, in which each of the 3 authors independently reviewed one-third of all model outputs. Results: In total, 44 mobile DiGAs were included and analyzed. After data extraction and cleansing, the final dataset comprised 4328 reviews containing at least one interpretable statement, resulting in 9439 interpretable statements. A systematic validation of the automated classification demonstrated exceptionally high model performance, with 99% accuracy for sentiment classification ( Conclusions: User feedback on reimbursable DiGAs is predominantly positive, particularly regarding perceived effectiveness, overall impression, and content. However, recurring criticism of login and registration processes, technical reliability, and prescription and approval procedures reveals persistent barriers to access and use. As many of these aspects are prerequisites rather than peripheral convenience issues, they should be treated as essential implementation requirements. Analyzed at scale with large language model-based methods, publicly available app store reviews can complement formal evaluation by providing user-centered real-world evidence for postmarket monitoring and regulatory quality improvement.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsDigital HealthGermanyHumansLarge Language Modelsapplicationsappsdigital therapeuticseHealthlarge language modelLLMmHealthmobile health

Identifiers

PMID42849059
PMCPMC13649173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.