Creating boundaries to empower digital health technology

Ethical issues in direct-to-consumer healthcare: A scoping review

An increasing number of health products and services are being offered on a direct-to-consumer (DTC) basis. To date, however, scholarship on DTC healthcare products and services has largely proceeded in a domain-specific fashion, with discussions of relevant ethical challenges occurring within specific medical specialties. The present study therefore aimed to provide a scoping review of ethical issues raised in the academic literature across types of DTC healthcare products and services. A systematic search for relevant publications between 2011-2021 was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar using iteratively developed search terms. The final sample included 86 publications that discussed ethical issues related to DTC healthcare products and services. All publications were coded for ethical issues mentioned, primary DTC product or service discussed, type of study, year of publication, and geographical context. We found that the types of DTC healthcare products and services mentioned in our sample spanned six categories: neurotechnology (34%), testing (20%), in-person services (17%), digital health tools (14%), telemedicine (13%), and physical interventions (2%). Ethical arguments in favor of DTC healthcare included improved access (e.g., financial, geographical; 31%), increased autonomy (29%), and enhanced convenience (16%). Commonly raised ethical concerns included insufficient regulation (72%), questionable efficacy and quality (70%), safety and physical harms (66%), misleading advertising claims (56%), and privacy (34%). Other frequently occurring ethical concerns pertained to financial costs, targeting vulnerable groups, informed consent, and potential burdens on healthcare providers, the healthcare system, and society. Our findings offer insights into the cross-cutting ethical issues associated with DTC healthcare and underscore the need for increased interdisciplinary communication to address the challenges they raise.

Digitalization in Medicine: Are German Medical Students Well Prepared for the Future?

The German healthcare system is facing a major transformation towards digitalized medicine. The aim was to find out the attitude and the degree of preparation of upcoming medical professionals for digital medicine. By means of an online survey, medical students from 38 German faculties were asked about different topics concerning digitalization. Most students (70.0%) indicated that they had not had any university courses on digital topics. Thus, only 22.2% feel prepared for the technical reality of digitalized medicine. Most fear losing patient contact because of digitalized medicine and assume that the medical profession will not be endangered by digitalization. Security systems, data protection, infrastructure and inadequate training are cited as the top problems of digitalization in medicine. Medical students have major concerns about incorrect decisions and the consecutive medicolegal aspects of using digital support as part their treatment plans. Digitalization in medicine is progressing faster than it can currently be implemented in the practical work. The generations involved have different understandings of technology, and there is a lack of curricular training in medical schools. There must be a significant improvement in training in digital medical skills so that the current and future healthcare professionals are better prepared for digitalized medicine.

Beyond the Therapist's Office: Merging Measurement-Based Care and Digital Medicine in the Real World

This viewpoint focuses on the ways in which digital medicine and measurement-based care can be utilized in tandem to promote better assessment, patient engagement, and an improved quality of psychiatric care. To date, there has been an underutilization of digital measurement in psychiatry, and there is little discussion of the feedback and patient engagement process in digital medicine. Measurement-based care is a recognized evidence-based strategy that engages patients in an understanding of their outcome data. When implemented as designed, providers review the scores and trends in outcome immediately and then provide feedback to their patients. However, the process is typically confined to office visits, which does not provide a complete picture of a patient's progress and functioning. The process is labor intensive, even with digital feedback systems, but the integration of passive metrics obtained through wearables and apps can supplement office-based observations. This enhanced measurement-based care process can provide a picture of real-world patient functioning through passive metrics (activity, sleep, etc.). This can potentially engage patients more in their health data and involve a critically needed therapeutic alliance component in digital medicine.

Digital Technologies for Schizophrenia Management: A Descriptive Review

While the implementation of digital technology in psychiatry appears promising, there is an urgent need to address the implications of the absence of ethical design in the early development of such technologies. Some authors have noted the gap between technology development and ethical analysis and have called for an upstream examination of the ethical issues raised by digital technologies. In this paper, we address this suggestion, particularly in relation to digital healthcare technologies for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The introduction of digital technologies in psychiatry offers a broad spectrum of diagnostic and treatment options tailored to the health needs and goals of patients' care. These technologies include wearable devices, smartphone applications for high-immersive virtual realities, smart homes, telepsychiatry and messaging systems for patients in rural areas. The availability of these technologies could increase access to mental health services and improve the diagnostics of mental disorders. In this descriptive review, we systematize ethical concerns about digital technologies for mental health with a particular focus on individuals suffering from schizophrenia. There are many unsolved dilemmas and conflicts of interest in the implementation of these technologies, such as (1) the lack of evidence on efficacy and impact on self-perception; (2) the lack of clear standards for the safety of their daily implementation; (3) unclear roles of technology and a shift in the responsibilities of all parties; (4) no guarantee of data confidentiality; and (5) the lack of a user-centered design that meets the particular needs of patients with schizophrenia. mHealth can improve care in psychiatry and make mental healthcare services more efficient and personalized while destigmatizing mental health disorders. To ensure that these technologies will benefit people with mental health disorders, we need to heighten sensitivity to ethical issues among mental healthcare specialists, health policy makers, software developers, patients themselves and their proxies. Additionally, we need to develop frameworks for furthering sustainable development in the digital technologies industry and for the responsible usage of such technologies for patients with schizophrenia in the clinical setting. We suggest that digital technology in psychiatry, particularly for schizophrenia and other serious mental health disorders, should be integrated into treatment with professional supervision rather than as a self-treatment tool.

The Association Between App-Administered Depression Assessments and Suicidal Ideation in User Comments: Retrospective Observational Study

Background

Many people use apps to help understand and manage their depression symptoms. App-administered questionnaires for the symptoms of depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, are easy to score and implement in an app, but may not be accompanied by essential resources and access needed to provide proper support and avoid potential harm.

Objective

Our primary goal was to evaluate the differences in risks and helpfulness associated with using an app to self-diagnose depression, comparing assessment-only apps with multifeatured apps. We also investigated whether, what, and how additional app features may mitigate potential risks.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, we identified apps in the Google Play store that provided a depression assessment as a feature and had at least five user comments. We separated apps into two categories based on those having only a depression assessment versus those that offered additional supportive features. We conducted theoretical thematic analyses over the user reviews, with thematic coding indicating the helpfulness of the app, the presence of suicidal ideation, and how and why the apps were used. We compared the results across the two categories of apps and analyzed the differences using chi-square statistical tests.

Results

We evaluated 6 apps; 3 provided only a depression assessment (assessment only), and 3 provided features in addition to self-assessment (multifeatured). User comments for assessment-only apps indicated significantly more suicidal ideation or self-harm (n=31, 9.4%) compared to comments for multifeatured apps (n=48, 2.3%; X²₁=43.88, P<.001). Users of multifeatured apps were over three times more likely than assessment-only app users to comment in favor of the app’s helpfulness, likely due to features like mood tracking, journaling, and informational resources (n=56, 17% vs n=1223, 59% respectively; X²₁=200.36, P<.001). The number of users under the age of 18 years was significantly higher among assessment-only app users (n=40, 12%) than multifeatured app users (n=9, 0.04%; X²₁=189.09, P<.001).

Conclusions

Apps that diagnose depression by self-assessment without context or other supportive features are more likely to be used by those under 18 years of age and more likely to be associated with increased user distress and potential harm. Depression self-assessments in apps should be implemented with caution and accompanied by evidence-based capabilities that establish proper context, increase self-empowerment, and encourage users to seek clinical diagnostics and outside help.

Generating value with mental health apps

BACKGROUND

Although apps are increasingly being used to support the diagnosis, treatment and management of mental illness, there is no single means through which costs associated with mental apps are being reimbursed. Furthermore, different apps are amenable to different means of reimbursement as not all apps generate value in the same way.

AIMS

To provide insights into how apps are currently generating value and being reimbursed across the world, with a particular focus on the situation in the USA.

METHOD

An international team performed secondary research on how apps are being used and on common pathways to remuneration.

RESULTS

The uses of apps today and in the future are reviewed, the nature of the value delivered by apps is summarised and an overview of app reimbursement in the USA and other countries is provided. Recommendations regarding how payments might be made for apps in the future are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, apps are being reimbursed through channels with other original purposes. There may be a need to develop an app-specific channel for reimbursement which is analogous to the channels used for devices, drugs and laboratory tests.