Assessing the Food and Drug Administration's Risk-Based Framework for Software Precertification With Top Health Apps in the United States: Quality Improvement Study

Regulatory and Implementation Considerations for Artificial Intelligence

Successful artificial intelligence (AI) implementation is predicated on the trust of clinicians and patients, and is achieved through a culture of responsible use, focusing on regulations, standards, and education. Otolaryngologists can overcome barriers in AI implementation by promoting data standardization through professional societies, engaging in institutional efforts to integrate AI, and developing otolaryngology-specific AI education for both trainees and practitioners.

A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools: results of a modified Delphi process

Among the thousands of eHealth tools available, the vast majority do not get past pilot phases because they cannot prove value, and only a few have been systematically assessed. Although multiple eHealth assessment frameworks have been developed, these efforts face multiple challenges. This study aimed to address some of these challenges by validating and refining an initial list of 55 assessment criteria based on previous frameworks through a two-round modified Delphi process with in-between rounds of interviews. The expert panel (n = 57) included participants from 18 countries and 9 concerned parties. A consensus was reached on 46 criteria that were classified into foundational and contextual criteria. The 36 foundational criteria focus on evaluating the eHealth tool itself and were grouped into nine clusters: technical aspects, clinical utility and safety, usability and human centricity, functionality, content, data management, endorsement, maintenance, and developer. The 10 contextual criteria focus on evaluating the factors that vary depending on the context the tool is being evaluated for and were grouped into seven clusters: data-protection compliance, safety regulatory compliance, interoperability and data integration, cultural requirements, affordability, cost-benefit, and implementability. The classification of criteria into foundational and contextual helps us assess not only the quality of an isolated tool, but also its potential fit in a specific setting. Criteria subscales may be particularly relevant when determining the strengths and weaknesses of the tool being evaluated. This granularity enables different concerned parties to make informed decisions about which tools to consider according to their specific needs and priorities.

Assessing the Quality and Impact of eHealth Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Technological advancements have opened the path for many technology providers to easily develop and introduce eHealth tools to the public. The use of these tools is increasingly recognized as a critical quality driver in health care; however, choosing a quality tool from the myriad of tools available for a specific health need does not come without challenges.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to systematically investigate the literature to understand the different approaches and criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and organizational perspectives).

METHODS

A structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 in English, which yielded 675 results, of which 40 (5.9%) studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes.

RESULTS

Similar measures from the different papers, frameworks, and initiatives were aggregated into 36 unique criteria grouped into 13 clusters. Using the sociotechnical approach, we classified the relevant criteria into technical, social, and organizational assessment criteria. Technical assessment criteria were grouped into 5 clusters: technical aspects, functionality, content, data management, and design. Social assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: human centricity, health outcomes, visible popularity metrics, and social aspects. Organizational assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: sustainability and scalability, health care organization, health care context, and developer.

CONCLUSIONS

This review builds on the growing body of research that investigates the criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools and highlights the complexity and challenges facing these initiatives. It demonstrates that there is no single framework that is used uniformly to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach that balances the social, organizational, and technical assessment criteria in a way that reflects the complexity and interdependence of the health care ecosystem and is aligned with the factors affecting users' adoption to ensure uptake and adherence in the long term.

Assessment of Mental Health Services Available Through Smartphone Apps

IMPORTANCE

As more patients and clinicians are turning to mental health smartphone apps to expand access to services, little is known about the current state of the app marketplaces and what these apps are actually offering in terms of features, privacy, price, and services.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current state of mental health apps, explore the association between app privacy scores and popularity as measured by star ratings and downloads, and to understand opportunities and challenges facing the commercial app landscape.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study had trained raters using the public-facing M-Health Index and Navigation Database (MIND) to assess and review 578 mental health apps. The sample of apps used in this analysis were pulled from MIND and include apps across various conditions including schizophrenia, eating disorders, sleep, and more. Analysis of these apps was conducted in June 2022.

EXPOSURES

There were 578 mental health apps rated across 105 dimensions derived from the American Psychiatric Association's app evaluation framework.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

App raters assessed each app across 6 categories: (1) app origin and accessibility, (2) privacy and security, (3) clinical foundation, (4) features and engagement, (5) inputs and outputs, and (6) interoperability. Privacy scores were determined by 5 MIND criteria, including (1) having a privacy policy, (2) reporting security measures in place, (3) declaring data use and purpose, (4) allowing for the deletion of data, and (5) allowing users to opt out of data collection. Correlations between privacy scores and popularity metrics (star ratings and number of downloads) were measured.

RESULTS

This study included 578 mental health apps that were identified, assessed, and analyzed across 105 MIND dimensions. Psychoeducation, goal setting, and mindfulness were among the top app features. Of the 578 apps analyzed, 443 (77%) had a privacy policy. This analysis of apps with a privacy policy revealed that there was no statistically significant correlation between privacy scores and Apple App Store (r = 0.058, P = .29) or Google Play Store star ratings (r = 0.041; P = .48). The number of app downloads on the Google Play Store, however, was weakly correlated with privacy scores (χ25 = 22.1; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study of mental health apps, findings indicate that the current app marketplaces primarily offered basic features such as psychoeducation, goal tracking, and mindfulness but fewer innovative features such as biofeedback or specialized therapies. Privacy challenges remained common, and app popularity metrics provided little help in identifying apps with more privacy.

Mental health professionals views and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on implementing digital mental health in China: A nationwide survey study

BACKGROUND

Using digital health technologies (DHTs) to deliver and augment healthcare is an innovative way to solve common challenges that the mental healthcare setting faces. Despite China's rapid development of DHT, a comprehensive understanding of staff views of DHTs is lacking, which limited the evidence to support implementation strategies. In the current study, we aim to: (i) investigate staff attitudes towards digital technology for mental health problems in China; (ii) explore staff's views on the facilitators and barriers regarding uptake and adoption of digital technology in mental health services in China; and (iii) understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed staff views on digital mental health.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted to explore staff attitudes towards implementing DHTs in China. Descriptive statistics were conducted to summarise quantitative data. Free-text data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

1270 mental health professionals completed the survey. Respondents reported low levels of knowledge of DHTs and moderate levels of accessibility of DHTs in their hospitals. Respondents expressed positive attitudes towards DHTs and demonstrated moderate levels of perceived feasibility and acceptability of implementing DHTs in clinical services. As expected, respondents reported that the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant impacts on their clinical services, and almost all respondents deemed DHTs useful for services provision during the pandemic and were willing to apply such technologies in clinical services after the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the Chinese mental health staff expressed positive attitudes towards implementing DHTs in clinical practice, most of the staff lacked sufficient knowledge to provide such services. These findings highlight the need to develop implementation strategies such as training programmes and dissemination of research evidence to support the translation of research.

Regulatory considerations to keep pace with innovation in digital health products

Rapid innovation and proliferation of software as a medical device have accelerated the clinical use of digital technologies across a wide array of medical conditions. Current regulatory pathways were developed for traditional (hardware) medical devices and offer a useful structure, but the evolution of digital devices requires concomitant innovation in regulatory approaches to maximize the potential benefits of these emerging technologies. A number of specific adaptations could strengthen current regulatory oversight while promoting ongoing innovation.

Analysis of the Regulatory, Legal, and Medical Conditions for the Prescription of Mobile Health Applications in the United States, The European Union, and France

INTRODUCTION

Mobile health (mHealth) is now considered an important approach to extend traditional health services and to meet the growing medical needs. The prescribability of mHealth applications is a complex problem because it depends on a large number of factors and concerns a wide range of disciplines and actors in the industrial, health, normative, and regulatory domains.

OBJECTIVE

Our study correlated data from the scientific literature with data on regulatory developments in the United States, the European Union, and France with the aim of identifying the conditions for the prescription of mHealth applications.

METHODS

The search method adopted was the systematic literature review process by Brereton et al. All empirical evidence from the relevant fields of study was gathered and then evaluated to answer our predefined research questions. The WoS and PubMed databases were queried for the period between 1 January 1975 and 30 November 2020. A total of 165 articles (15 with a direct focus and 150 with an indirect focus on mHealth prescribing) were analyzed/cross-referenced. The ScienceDirect database was consulted to complement the collected data when needed. Data published by international and national regulatory bodies were analyzed in light of the scientific data obtained from the WoS, PubMed, and ScienceDirect databases.

RESULTS

The International Medical Device Regulators Forum has ensured the international structuring of the regulatory field in collaboration with participating countries. The creation and updating of databases have allowed the tracking of medical device versions/upgrades and incidents. The regulatory organizations of the United States, the European Union, and France are currently consulting healthcare personnel, manufacturers, and patients to establish evaluation criteria for usability and quality of instructions for use that take into consideration patients' level of literacy. These organizations are also providing support to manufacturers who wish to file marketing applications. Marketing, privacy, and cybersecurity measures are evolving with developments in technology and state cooperation policies. The prescription of mHealth applications will gain social acceptance only if consistency and coordination are ensured at all stages of the process: from pre-design, through verification of medical effectiveness, to ethical consideration during data collection and use, and on to marketing.

CONCLUSION

The conditions for mHealth prescribability include the adaptation of international regulation by the different states, the state provision of marketing support, and the evaluation of mHealth applications. For mHealth to gain social acceptance, increased collaboration among physicians, manufacturers, and "information technology stakeholders" is needed. Once this is achieved, MHealth can become the cornerstone of successful health care reform.

The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality

As the COVID-19 pandemic has largely increased the utilization of telehealth, mobile mental health technologies - such as smartphone apps, vir-tual reality, chatbots, and social media - have also gained attention. These digital health technologies offer the potential of accessible and scalable interventions that can augment traditional care. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive update on the overall field of digital psychiatry, covering three areas. First, we outline the relevance of recent technological advances to mental health research and care, by detailing how smartphones, social media, artificial intelligence and virtual reality present new opportunities for "digital phenotyping" and remote intervention. Second, we review the current evidence for the use of these new technological approaches across different mental health contexts, covering their emerging efficacy in self-management of psychological well-being and early intervention, along with more nascent research supporting their use in clinical management of long-term psychiatric conditions - including major depression; anxiety, bipolar and psychotic disorders; and eating and substance use disorders - as well as in child and adolescent mental health care. Third, we discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities towards real-world implementation, using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to explain how the innovations themselves, the recipients of these innovations, and the context surrounding innovations all must be considered to facilitate their adoption and use in mental health care systems. We conclude that the new technological capabilities of smartphones, artificial intelligence, social media and virtual reality are already changing mental health care in unforeseen and exciting ways, each accompanied by an early but promising evidence base. We point out that further efforts towards strengthening implementation are needed, and detail the key issues at the patient, provider and policy levels which must now be addressed for digital health technologies to truly improve mental health research and treatment in the future.

From Precision Metapharmacology to Patient Empowerment: Delivery of Self-Care Practices for Epilepsy, Pain, Depression and Cancer Using Digital Health Technologies

To improve long-term outcomes of therapies for chronic diseases, health promotion and lifestyle modifications are the most promising and sustainable strategies. In addition, advances in digital technologies provide new opportunities to address limitations of drug-based treatments, such as medication non-adherence, adverse effects, toxicity, drug resistance, drug shortages, affordability, and accessibility. Pharmaceutical drugs and biologics can be combined with digital health technologies, including mobile medical apps (digital therapeutics), which offer additional clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. Promises of drug+digital combination therapies are recognized by pharmaceutical and digital health companies, opening opportunities for integrating pharmacotherapies with non-pharmacological interventions (metapharmacology). Herein we present unique features of digital health technologies which can deliver personalized self-care modalities such as breathing exercises, mindfulness meditation, yoga, physical activity, adequate sleep, listening to preferred music, forgiveness and gratitude. Clinical studies reveal how aforementioned complimentary practices may support treatments of epilepsy, chronic pain, depression, cancer, and other chronic diseases. This article also describes how digital therapies delivering “medicinal” self-care and other non-pharmacological interventions can also be personalized by accounting for: 1) genetic risks for comorbidities, 2) adverse childhood experiences, 3) increased risks for viral infections such as seasonal influenza, or COVID-19, and 4) just-in-time stressful and traumatic circumstances. Development and implementation of personalized pharmacological-behavioral combination therapies (precision metapharmacology) require aligning priorities of key stakeholders including patients, research communities, healthcare industry, regulatory and funding agencies. In conclusion, digital technologies enable integration of pharmacotherapies with self-care, lifestyle interventions and patient empowerment, while concurrently advancing patient-centered care, integrative medicine and digital health ecosystems.