Connected Health Devices for Health Care in French General Medicine Practice: Cross-Sectional Study

The use of medical health applications by primary care physicians in Israel: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The use of medical health applications (mHealth apps) by patients, caregivers, and physicians is widespread. mHealth apps are often employed by physicians to quickly access professional knowledge, guide treatment, easily retrieve medical records, and monitor and manage patients. This study sought to characterize the use of mHealth apps among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Israel. The reasons for using apps and barriers to their use were also investigated.

METHODS

From all MHS' PCPs, we randomly selected 700 PCPs and invited them to complete a questionnaire regarding the use of mHealth apps and attitudes toward them.

RESULTS

From August 2020 to December 2020, 191 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate 27.3%). 68.0% of PCPs reported using mHealth apps. Telemedicine service apps were the most frequently used. Medical calculators (used for clinical scoring) and differential diagnosis apps were the least frequently used. The most common reason for mHealth app use was accessibility, followed by time saved and a sense of information reliability. Among infrequent users of apps, the most common barriers reported were unfamiliarity with relevant apps and preference for using a computer. Concerns regarding information reliability were rarely reported by PCPs. Physician gender and seniority were not related to mHealth app use. Physician age was related to the use of mHealth apps.

CONCLUSIONS

mHealth apps are widely used by PCPs in this study, regardless of physician gender or seniority. Information from mHealth apps is considered reliable by PCPs. The main barrier to app use is unfamiliarity with relevant apps and preference for computer use.

Enablers and inhibitors to the adoption of mHealth apps by patients - A qualitative analysis of German doctors' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Germany is the first country that approved validated mobile health apps (called DiGA) for prescription by doctors and psychotherapists. The aim of this study is to investigate doctors' perspectives towards these mobile health apps and their intentions to prescribe them. Additionally, we investigated the influence of different roles and expectations of outcomes.

METHODS

We used a qualitative study design to determine doctors' viewpoints on prescribing DiGAs. We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews and used the grounded theory method for analysis. We adopted a classical conceptualist approach to gain theoretical insights.

RESULTS

The results show that doctors' acceptance and support of DiGAs are critical in mobile health uptake and utilisation. Although mobile health is seen to be supportive of patient management and patient education doctors nevertheless need to adopt a motivating and persuasive role in the process.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors consider DiGAs complementary to their role in patient management and are predominantly positive about DiGAs. A trusted relationship with patients must be developed to ensure the appropriate support of DiGAs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our study suggests that targeted education, user-centred DiGAs, consideration of social presence and user engagement, and co-development with doctors can improve longer-term DiGA use and effectiveness.

An age-old problem or an old-age problem? A UK survey of attitudes, historical use and recommendations by healthcare professionals to use healthcare apps

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated barriers to accessing face-to-face care. Consequently, the potential for digital health technologies (DHTs) to address unmet needs has gained traction. DHTs may circumvent several barriers to healthy independent living, resulting in both socioeconomic and clinical benefits. However, previous studies have demonstrated these benefits may be disproportionately realised among younger populations while excluding older people.

METHODS

We performed a prospective survey using the One Poll market research platform among 2000 adults from the United Kingdom. To mitigate against self-selection bias, participants were not informed of the topic of the survey until they had completed recruitment. We compared willingness to use and historical use of health-apps, in addition to recommendations to use health-apps from healthcare professionals; comparing outcomes across all age groups, including a reference group (n = 222) of those aged 18-24. Outcomes were analysed using multivariate logistic regression and reported as odds ratios (OR) with respondent age, ethnicity, gender, and location as covariates.

RESULTS

Willingness to use health-apps decreased significantly with age, reaching a minimum (OR = 0.39) among those aged 65 and over compared to the reference group of 18-24 year olds. Despite this, more than 52% of those aged 65 and over were willing to use health-apps. Functions and features most cited as useful by older populations included symptom self-monitoring and surgery recovery assistance. The likelihood of never having used a health-app also increased consistently with age, reaching a maximum among those aged 65 and over (OR = 18.3). Finally, the likelihood of being recommended health-apps by a healthcare professional decreased significantly with age, (OR = 0.09) for those aged 65 and over. In absolute terms, 33.8% of those aged 18-24, and 3.9% of those aged 65 and over were recommended health-apps by their healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

Although absolute utilisation of health-apps decreases with age, the findings of this study suggest that the gap between those willing to use health-apps, and those being recommended health-apps by healthcare professionals increases with age. Given the increasing availability of evidence-based health-apps designed for older populations, this may result in entirely avoidable unmet needs, suggesting that more should be done by healthcare professionals to recommend health-apps to older persons who are generally positive about their use. This may result in considerable improvements in healthy and independent ageing.

Willingness of French General Practitioners to Prescribe mHealth Apps and Devices: Quantitative Study

Background

The field of mobile health (mHealth) is constantly expanding. Integrating mHealth apps and devices in clinical practice is a major and complex challenge. General practitioners (GPs) are an essential link in a patient’s care pathway. As they are patients’ preferred health care intermediaries, GPs play an important role in supporting patients’ transition to mHealth.

Objective

This study aims to identify the factors associated with the willingness of French GPs to prescribe mHealth apps and devices to their patients.

Methods

This study was part of the ApiAppS project whose overall objective was to help remove barriers GPs face when prescribing mHealth apps and devices by developing a custom-built platform to aid them. The study included GPs recruited from the general practice department of several medical faculties in France (Lyon, Nice, and Rouen) and mailing lists of academic GPs, health care professional associations, and social and professional networks. Participants were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire that collected data on various sociodemographic variables, indicators of their involvement in continued education programs and the amount of time they dedicated to promoting healthy behaviors during patient consultations, and indicators characterizing their patient population. Data on their perceptions of mHealth apps and devices were also collected. Finally, the questionnaire included items to measure GPs’ acceptability of prescribing mHealth apps and devices for several health-related dimensions.

Results

Of the 174 GPs, 129 (74.1%) declared their willingness to prescribe mHealth apps and devices to their patients. In multivariate analysis, involvement in continued education programs (odds ratio [OR] 6.17, 95% CI 1.52-28.72), a better patient base command of the French language (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13-1.88), GP-perceived benefits of mHealth apps and devices for both patients and their medical practice and GP-perceived drivers for mHealth apps and device implementation in their medical practice (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07), and validation of mHealth apps and devices through randomized clinical trials (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04) were all associated with GPs’ willingness to prescribe mHealth apps and devices. In contrast, older GPs (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.98), female GPs (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), and those who perceived risks for the patient or their medical practice (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99) were less inclined to prescribe mHealth apps and devices.

Conclusions

mHealth apps and devices were generally seen by GPs as useful in general medicine and were, for the most part, favorable to prescribing them. Their full integration in general medicine will be conditioned by the need for conclusive certification, transparency (reliable and precise data concerning mHealth app and device methods of construction and clinical validation), software aids to assist GPs prescribe them, and dedicated training programs.

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.

Physicians' Attitudes Toward Prescribable mHealth Apps and Implications for Adoption in Germany: Mixed Methods Study

Background

In October 2020, Germany became the first country, worldwide, to approve certain mobile health (mHealth) apps, referred to as DiGA (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen, in German, meaning digital health applications), for prescription with costs covered by standard statutory health insurance. Yet, this option has only been used to a limited extent so far.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate physicians’ and psychotherapists’ current attitudes toward mHealth apps, barriers to adoption, and potential remedies.

Methods

We conducted a two-stage sequential mixed methods study. In phase one, semistructured interviews were conducted with physicians and psychotherapists for questionnaire design. In phase two, an online survey was conducted among general practitioners, physicians, and psychotherapists.

Results

A total of 1308 survey responses by mostly outpatient-care general practitioners, physicians, and psychotherapists from across Germany who could prescribe DiGA were recorded, making this the largest study on mHealth prescriptions to date. A total of 62.1% (807/1299) of respondents supported the opportunity to prescribe DiGA. Improved adherence (997/1294, 77.0%), health literacy (842/1294, 65.1%), and disease management (783/1294, 60.5%) were most frequently seen as benefits of DiGA. However, only 30.3% (393/1299) of respondents planned to prescribe DiGA, varying greatly by medical specialty. Professionals are still facing substantial barriers, such as insufficient information (1135/1295, 87.6%), reimbursement for DiGA-related medical services (716/1299, 55.1%), medical evidence (712/1298, 54.9%), legal uncertainties (680/1299, 52.3%), and technological uncertainties (658/1299, 50.7%). To support professionals who are unsure of prescribing DiGA, extended information campaigns (1104/1297, 85.1%) as well as recommendations from medical associations (1041/1297, 80.3%) and medical colleagues (1024/1297, 79.0%) were seen as the most impactful remedies.

Conclusions

To realize the benefits from DiGA through increased adoption, additional information sharing about DiGA from trusted bodies, reimbursement for DiGA-related medical services, and further medical evidence are recommended.

Implications of remote monitoring Technology in Optimizing Traditional Self-Monitoring of blood glucose in adults with T2DM in primary care

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been shown to reduce hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C). Accordingly, guidelines recommend SMBG up to 4-10 times daily for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on insulin. For persons not on insulin, recommendations are equivocal. Newer technology-enabled blood glucose monitoring (BGM) devices can facilitate remote monitoring of glycemic data. New evidence generated by remote BGM may help to guide best practices for frequency and timing of finger-stick blood glucose (FSBG) monitoring in uncontrolled T2DM patients managed in primary care settings. This study aims to evaluate the impact of SMBG utility and frequency on glycemic outcomes using a novel BGM system which auto-transfers near real-time FSBG data to a cloud-based dashboard using cellular networks.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of the intervention arm of a comparative non-randomized trial with propensity-matched chart controls. Adults with T2DM and HbA1C > 9% receiving care in five primary care practices in a healthcare system participated in a 3-month diabetes boot camp (DBC) using telemedicine and a novel BGM to support comprehensive diabetes care management. The primary independent variable was frequency of FSBG. Secondary outcomes included frequency of FSBG by insulin status, distribution of FSBG checks by time of day, and hypoglycemia rates.

RESULTS

48,111 FSBGs were transmitted by 359 DBC completers. Participants performed 1.5 FSBG checks/day; with 1.6 checks/day for those on basal/bolus insulin. Higher FSBG frequency was associated with greater improvement in HbA1C independent of insulin treatment status (p = 0.0003). FSBG frequency was higher in patients treated with insulin (p = 0.003). FSBG checks were most common pre-breakfast and post-dinner. Hypoglycemia was rare (1.2% < 70 mg/dL).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with uncontrolled T2DM achieved significant HbA1C improvement performing just 1.5 FSBGs daily during a technology-enabled diabetes care intervention. Among the 40% taking insulin, this improvement was achieved with a lower FSBG frequency than guidelines recommend. For those not on insulin, despite a lower frequency of FSBG, they achieved a greater reduction in A1C compared to patients on insulin. Low frequency FSBG monitoring pre-breakfast and post-dinner can potentially support optimization of glycemic control regardless of insulin status in the primary care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number: NCT02925312 (10/19/2016).

Factors Impacting Clinicians' Adoption of a Clinical Photo Documentation App and its Implications for Clinical Workflows and Quality of Care: Qualitative Case Study

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth) tools have shown promise in clinical photo and wound documentation for their potential to improve workflows, expand access to care, and improve the quality of patient care. However, some barriers to adoption persist.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand the social, organizational, and technical factors affecting clinicians' adoption of a clinical photo documentation mHealth app and its implications for clinical workflows and quality of care.

METHODS

A qualitative case study of a clinical photo and wound documentation app called imitoCam was conducted. The data were collected through 20 in-depth interviews with mHealth providers, clinicians, and medical informatics experts from 8 clinics and hospitals in Switzerland and Germany.

RESULTS

According to the study participants, the use of mHealth in clinical photo and wound documentation provides numerous benefits such as time-saving and efficacy, better patient safety and quality of care, enhanced data security and validation, and better accessibility. The clinical workflow may also improve when the app is a good fit, resulting in better collaboration and transparency, streamlined daily work, clinician empowerment, and improved quality of care. The findings included important factors that may contribute to or hinder adoption. Factors may be related to the material nature of the tool, such as the perceived usefulness, ease of use, interoperability, cost, or security of the app, or social aspects such as personal experience, attitudes, awareness, or culture. Organizational and policy barriers include the available clinical practice infrastructure, workload and resources, the complexity of decision making, training, and ambiguity or lack of regulations. User engagement in the development and implementation process is a vital contributor to the successful adoption of mHealth apps.

CONCLUSIONS

The promising potential of mHealth in clinical photo and wound documentation is clear and may enhance clinical workflow and quality of care; however, the factors affecting adoption go beyond the technical features of the tool itself to embrace significant social and organizational elements. Technology providers, clinicians, and decision makers should work together to carefully address any barriers to improve adoption and harness the potential of these tools.

Barriers to and Facilitators of the Prescription of mHealth Apps in Australian General Practice: Qualitative Study

Background

The ubiquity of smartphones and health apps make them a potential self-management tool for patients that could be prescribed by medical professionals. However, little is known about how Australian general practitioners and their patients view the possibility of prescribing mobile health (mHealth) apps as a nondrug intervention.

Objective

This study aimed to determine barriers and facilitators to prescribing mHealth apps in Australian general practice from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews in Australian general practice settings with purposively sampled general practitioners and patients. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed by two researchers.

Results

Interview participants included 20 general practitioners and 15 adult patients. General practitioners’ perceived barriers to prescribing apps included a generational difference in the digital propensity for providers and patients; lack of knowledge of prescribable apps and trustworthy sources to access them; the time commitment required of providers and patients to learn and use the apps; and concerns about privacy, safety, and trustworthiness of health apps. General practitioners perceived facilitators as trustworthy sources to access prescribable apps and information, and younger generation and widespread smartphone ownership. For patients, the main barriers were older age and usability of mHealth apps. Patients were not concerned about privacy and data safety issues regarding health app use. Facilitators for patients included the ubiquity of smartphones and apps, especially for the younger generation and recommendation of apps by doctors. We identified evidence of effectiveness as an independent theme from both the provider and patient perspectives.

Conclusions

mHealth app prescription appears to be feasible in general practice. The barriers and facilitators identified by the providers and patients overlapped, though privacy was of less concern to patients. The involvement of health professionals and patients is vital for the successful integration of effective, evidence-based mHealth apps with clinical practice.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Adoption of Mobile Health Among Health Care Professionals From the United Kingdom: Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing availability of mobile health services, clinical engagement remains minimal.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and weight barriers to and drivers of health app use among health care professionals (HCPs) from the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted with 222 HCPs using a web-based survey between March 2019 and June 2019. Participants were recruited to take part via social media and asked to choose their preferred option of 2 hypothetical health apps to prescribe to a hypothetical patient or to prescribe neither. Choices were characterized by differing levels of patient age, cost, published evidence bases, whether they had a National Health Service (NHS) stamp of approval, personal familiarity with the technology, and whether they were recommended by a fellow HCP. The results were analyzed using a mixed logit model, with subgroup analyses to account for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We received 230 responses, a total of 96.5% (n=222/230) of respondents understood the survey task and passed the test of rationality. The median age was between 36 and 45 years, and 62.6% (n=139/222) of the health care providers responding to the survey had previously recommended the use of health apps to patients. Health apps were most likely to be prescribed to patients if they had an NHS stamp of approval or if they were recommended by another HCP (both P<.001). Published studies detailing clinical effectiveness were important (P<.001), but it would take five published studies to have the same impact on prescribing behavior as an NHS stamp of approval and two studies to be as convincing as having used the technology personally. Increasing patient age and costs resulted in significant reductions in digital health prescribing (P<.001), none more so than among allied health professionals. Willingness-to-pay for health apps increased by £124.61 (US $151.14) if an NHS stamp of approval was present and by £29.20 (US $35.42) for each published study. Overall, 8.1% (n=18/222) of respondents were reluctant to use health apps, always choosing the I would prescribe neither option, particularly among older HCPs, nurses, and those who do not use health apps personally. Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in preferences among HCPs of differing ages and clinical backgrounds.

CONCLUSIONS

An NHS stamp of approval, published studies, and recommendations from fellow HCPs are significant facilitators of digital prescribing, whereas increasing costs and patient age are significant barriers to engagement. These findings suggest that demonstrating assurances of health apps and supporting both the dissemination and peer-to-peer recommendation of evidence-based technologies are critical if the NHS is to achieve its long-term digital transformation ambitions.

Social, Organizational, and Technological Factors Impacting Clinicians' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review

Background

There is a growing body of evidence highlighting the potential of mobile health (mHealth) in reducing health care costs, enhancing access, and improving the quality of patient care. However, user acceptance and adoption are key prerequisites to harness this potential; hence, a deeper understanding of the factors impacting this adoption is crucial for its success.

Objective

The aim of this review was to systematically explore relevant published literature to synthesize the current understanding of the factors impacting clinicians’ adoption of mHealth tools, not only from a technological perspective but also from social and organizational perspectives.

Methods

A structured search was carried out of MEDLINE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the SAGE database for studies published between January 2008 and July 2018 in the English language, yielding 4993 results, of which 171 met the inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane handbook were followed to ensure a systematic process.

Results

The technological factors impacting clinicians’ adoption of mHealth tools were categorized into eight key themes: usefulness, ease of use, design, compatibility, technical issues, content, personalization, and convenience, which were in turn divided into 14 subthemes altogether. Social and organizational factors were much more prevalent and were categorized into eight key themes: workflow related, patient related, policy and regulations, culture or attitude or social influence, monetary factors, evidence base, awareness, and user engagement. These were divided into 41 subthemes, highlighting the importance of considering these factors when addressing potential barriers to mHealth adoption and how to overcome them.

Conclusions

The study results can help inform mHealth providers and policymakers regarding the key factors impacting mHealth adoption, guiding them into making educated decisions to foster this adoption and harness the potential benefits.

Social, Organizational, and Technological Factors Impacting Clinicians' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of evidence highlighting the potential of mobile health (mHealth) in reducing health care costs, enhancing access, and improving the quality of patient care. However, user acceptance and adoption are key prerequisites to harness this potential; hence, a deeper understanding of the factors impacting this adoption is crucial for its success.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to systematically explore relevant published literature to synthesize the current understanding of the factors impacting clinicians' adoption of mHealth tools, not only from a technological perspective but also from social and organizational perspectives.

METHODS

A structured search was carried out of MEDLINE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the SAGE database for studies published between January 2008 and July 2018 in the English language, yielding 4993 results, of which 171 met the inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane handbook were followed to ensure a systematic process.

RESULTS

The technological factors impacting clinicians' adoption of mHealth tools were categorized into eight key themes: usefulness, ease of use, design, compatibility, technical issues, content, personalization, and convenience, which were in turn divided into 14 subthemes altogether. Social and organizational factors were much more prevalent and were categorized into eight key themes: workflow related, patient related, policy and regulations, culture or attitude or social influence, monetary factors, evidence base, awareness, and user engagement. These were divided into 41 subthemes, highlighting the importance of considering these factors when addressing potential barriers to mHealth adoption and how to overcome them.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results can help inform mHealth providers and policymakers regarding the key factors impacting mHealth adoption, guiding them into making educated decisions to foster this adoption and harness the potential benefits.

Identifying Frameworks for Validation and Monitoring of Consensual Behavioral Intervention Technologies: Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Changing health behaviors, such as smoking, unhealthy eating, inactivity, and alcohol abuse, may have a greater impact on population health than any curative strategy. One of the suggested strategies is the use of behavioral intervention technologies (BITs). They open up new opportunities in the area of prevention and therapy and have begun to show benefits in the durable change of health behaviors in patients or those at risk. A consensual and international paradigm was adopted by health authorities for drugs 50 years ago. It guides their development from research units to their authorization and surveillance. BITs' generalization brings into question their upstream evaluation before being placed on the market and their downstream monitoring once on the market; this is especially the case in view of the marketing information provided by manufacturers and the scarcity and methodological limits of scientific studies on these tools.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and categorize the frameworks for the validation and monitoring of BITs proposed in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative literature review using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The review items included the following: name, publication year, name of the creator (ie, first author), country, funding organization, health focus, target group, and design (ie, linear, iterative, evolutive, and/or concurrent). The frameworks were then categorized based on (1) translational research thanks to a continuum of steps and (2) the three paradigms that may have inspired the frameworks: biomedical, engineering, and/or behavioral.

RESULTS

We identified 46 frameworks besides the classic US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) five-phase drug development model. A total of 57% (26/46) of frameworks were created in the 2010s and 61% (28/46) involved the final user in an early and systematic way. A total of 4% (2/46) of frameworks had a linear-only sequence of their phases, 37% (17/46) had a linear and iterative structure, 33% (15/46) added an evolutive structure, and 24% (11/46) were associated with a parallel process. Only 12 out of 46 (26%) frameworks covered the continuum of steps and 12 (26%) relied on the three paradigms.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, 46 frameworks of BIT validation and surveillance coexist, besides the classic FDA five-phase drug development model, without the predominance of one of them or convergence in a consensual model. Their number has increased exponentially in the last three decades. Three dangerous scenarios are possible: (1) anarchic continuous development of BITs that depend on companies amalgamating health benefits and usability (ie, user experience, data security, and ergonomics) and limiting implementation to several countries; (2) the movement toward the type of framework for drug evaluation centered on establishing its effectiveness before marketing authorization to guarantee its safety for users, which is heavy and costly; and (3) the implementation of a framework reliant on big data analysis based on a posteriori research and an autoregulation of a market, but that does not address the safety risk for the health user, as the market will not regulate safety or efficacy issues. This paper recommends convergence toward an international validation and surveillance framework based on the specificities of BITs, not equivalent to medical devices, to guarantee their effectiveness and safety for users.

The Extent and Coverage of Current Knowledge of Connected Health: Systematic Mapping Study

Background

This study examines the development of the connected health (CH) research landscape with a view to providing an overview of the existing CH research. The research field of CH has experienced rapid growth coinciding with increasing pressure on health care systems to become more proactive and patient centered.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the extent and coverage of the current body of knowledge in CH. In doing so, we sought to identify specific topics that have drawn the attention of CH researchers and to identify research gaps, in particular those offering opportunities for further interdisciplinary research.

Methods

A systematic mapping study that combined scientific contributions from research in the disciplines of medicine, business, computer science, and engineering was used. Overall, seven classification criteria were used to analyze the papers, including publication source, publication year, research type, empirical type, contribution type, research topic, and the medical condition studied.

Results

The search resulted in 208 papers that were analyzed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers. The results indicated a slow start for CH research but showed a more recent steady upswing since 2013. The majority of papers proposed health care solutions (77/208, 37.0%) or evaluated CH approaches (49/208, 23.5%). Case studies (59/208, 28.3%) and experiments (55/208, 26.4%) were the most popular forms of scientific validation used. Diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and heart conditions were among the most prevalent medical conditions studied.

Conclusions

We conclude that CH research has become an established field of research that has grown over the last five years. The results of this study indicate a focus on technology-driven research with a strong contribution from medicine, whereas the business aspects of CH have received less research attention.

Current Knowledge and Adoption of Mobile Health Apps Among Australian General Practitioners: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth) apps can be prescribed as an effective self-management tool for patients. However, it is challenging for doctors to navigate 350,000 mHealth apps to find the right ones to recommend. Although medical professionals from many countries are using mHealth apps to varying degrees, current mHealth app use by Australian general practitioners (GPs) and the barriers and facilitators they encounter when integrating mHealth apps in their clinical practice have not been reported comprehensively.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate current knowledge and use of mHealth apps by GPs in Australia, (2) determine the barriers and facilitators to their use of mHealth apps in consultations, and (3) explore potential solutions to the barriers.

METHODS

We helped the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) to expand the mHealth section of their annual technology survey for 2017 based on the findings of our semistructured interviews with GPs to further explore barriers to using mHealth apps in clinical practice. The survey was distributed to the RACGP members nationwide between October 26 and December 3, 2017 using Qualtrics Web-based survey tool.

RESULTS

A total of 1014 RACGP members responded (response rate 4.6% [1014/21,884], completion rate 61.2% [621/1014]). The median years practiced was 20.7 years. Two-thirds of the GPs used apps professionally in the forms of medical calculators and point-of-care references. A little over half of the GPs recommended apps for patients either daily (12.9%, 80/621), weekly (25.9%, 161/621), or monthly (13.4%, 83/621). Mindfulness and mental health apps were recommended most often (32.5%, 337/1036), followed by diet and nutrition (13.9%, 144/1036), exercise and fitness (12.7%, 132/1036), and women's health (10%, 104/1036) related apps. Knowledge and usage of evidence-based apps from the Handbook of Non-Drug Interventions were low. The prevailing barriers to app prescription were the lack of knowledge of effective apps (59.9%, 372/621) and the lack of trustworthy source to access them (15.5%, 96/621). GPs expressed their need for a list of safe and effective apps from a trustworthy source, such as the RACGP, to overcome these barriers. They reported a preference for online video training material or webinar to learn more about mHealth apps.

CONCLUSIONS

Most GPs are using apps professionally but recommending apps to patients sparingly. The main barriers to app prescription were the lack of knowledge of effective apps and the lack of trustworthy source to access them. A curated compilation of effective mHealth apps or an app library specifically aimed at GPs and health professionals would help solve both barriers.

Veterans' Perspectives on Fitbit Use in Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: An Interview Study

BACKGROUND

The increase in availability of patient data through consumer health wearable devices and mobile phone sensors provides opportunities for mental health treatment beyond traditional self-report measurements. Previous studies have suggested that wearables can be effectively used to benefit the physical health of people with mental health issues, but little research has explored the integration of wearable devices into mental health care. As such, early research is still necessary to address factors that might impact integration including patients' motivations to use wearables and their subsequent data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of patients' motivations to use or not to use wearables devices during an intensive treatment program for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). During this treatment, they received a complementary Fitbit. We investigated the following research questions: How did the veterans in the intensive treatment program use their Fitbit? What are contributing motivators for the use and nonuse of the Fitbit?

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 13 veterans who completed an intensive treatment program for PTSD. We transcribed and analyzed interviews using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified three major motivations for veterans to use the Fitbit during their time in the program: increase self-awareness, support social interactions, and give back to other veterans. We also identified three major reasons certain features of the Fitbit were not used: lack of clarity around the purpose of the Fitbit, lack of meaning in the Fitbit data, and challenges in the veteran-provider relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

To integrate wearable data into mental health treatment programs, it is important to understand the patient's perspectives and motivations in using wearables. We also discuss how the military culture and PTSD may have contributed to our participants' behaviors and attitudes toward Fitbit usage. We conclude with possible approaches for integrating patient-generated data into mental health treatment settings that may address the challenges we identified.