Background: Despite their increasing popularity, little is known about how users perceive mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs in medical contexts. Available studies are often restricted to evaluating the success of specific interventions and do not adequately cover the users’ basic attitudes, for example, their expectations or concerns toward using mobile devices in medical settings. Objective: The objective of the study was to obtain a comprehensive picture, both from the perspective of the patients, as well as the doctors, regarding the use and acceptance of mobile devices within medical contexts in general well as the perceived challenges when introducing the technology. Methods: Doctors working at Hannover Medical School (206/1151, response 17.90%), as well as patients being admitted to this facility (213/279, utilization 76.3%) were surveyed about their acceptance and use of mobile devices in medical settings. Regarding demographics, both samples were representative of the respective study population. GNU R (version 3.1.1) was used for statistical testing. Fisher’s exact test, two-sided, alpha=.05 with Monte Carlo approximation, 2000 replicates, was applied to determine dependencies between two variables. Results: The majority of participants already own mobile devices (doctors, 168/206, 81.6%; patients, 110/213, 51.6%). For doctors, use in a professional context does not depend on age ( P =.66), professional experience ( P =.80), or function ( P =.34); gender was a factor ( P =.009), and use was more common among male (61/135, 45.2%) than female doctors (17/67, 25%). A correlation between use of mobile devices and age ( P =.001) as well as education ( P =.002) was seen for patients. Minor differences regarding how mobile devices are perceived in sensitive medical contexts mostly relate to data security, patients are more critical of the devices being used for storing and processing patient data; every fifth patient opposed this, but nevertheless, 4.8% of doctors (10/206) use their devices for this purpose. Both groups voiced only minor concerns about the credibility of the provided content or the technical reliability of the devices. While 8.3% of the doctors (17/206) avoided use during patient contact because they thought patients might be unfamiliar with the devices, (25/213) 11.7% of patients expressed concerns about the technology being too complicated to be used in a health context. Conclusions: Differences in how patients and doctors perceive the use of mobile devices can be attributed to age and level of education; these factors are often mentioned as contributors of the problems with (mobile) technologies. To fully realize the potential of mobile technologies in a health care context, the needs of both the elderly as well as those who are educationally disadvantaged need to be carefully addressed in all strategies relating to mobile technology in a health context. [JMIR mHealth uHealth 2014;2(4):e42]

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Background: Health apps are often used without adequately taking aspects related to their quality under consideration. This may partially be due to inadequate awareness about necessary criteria and how to prioritize them when evaluating an app. Objective: The aim of this study was to introduce a method for prioritizing quality attributes in the mobile health context. To this end, physicians were asked about their assessment of nine app quality principles relevant in health contexts and their responses were used as a basis for designing a method for app prioritization. Ultimately, the goal was to aid in making better use of limited resources (eg, time) by assisting with the decision as to the specific quality principles that deserve priority in everyday medical practice and those that can be given lower priority, even in cases where the overall principles are rated similarly. Methods: A total of 9503 members of two German professional societies in the field of orthopedics were invited by email to participate in an anonymous online survey over a 1-month period. Participants were asked to rate a set of nine app quality principles using a Kano survey with functional and dysfunctional (ie, positively and negatively worded) questions. The evaluation was based on the work of Kano (baseline), supplemented by a self-designed approach. Results: Among the 9503 invited members, 382 completed relevant parts of the survey (return rate of 4.02%). These participants were equally and randomly assigned to two groups (test group and validation group, n=191 each). Demographic characteristics did not significantly differ between groups (all P>.05). Participants were predominantly male (328/382, 85.9%) and older than 40 years (290/382, 75.9%). Given similar ratings, common evaluation strategies for Kano surveys did not allow for conclusive prioritization of the principles, and the same was true when using the more elaborate approach of satisfaction and dissatisfaction indices following the work of Timko. Therefore, an extended, so-called “in-line-of-sight” method was developed and applied for this evaluation. Modified from the Timko method, this approach is based on a “point of view” (POV) metric, which generates a ranking coefficient. Although the principles were previously almost exclusively rated as must-be (with the exception of resource efficiency), which was not conducive to their prioritization, the new method applied from the must-be POV resulted in identical rankings for the test and validation groups: (1) legal conformity, (2) content validity, (3) risk adequacy, (4) practicality, (5) ethical soundness, (6) usability, (7) transparency, (8) technical adequacy, and (9) resource efficiency. Conclusions: Established survey methodologies based on the work of Kano predominantly seek to categorize the attributes to be evaluated. The methodology presented here is an interesting option for prioritization, and enables focusing on the most important criteria, thus saving valuable time when reviewing apps for use in the medical field, even with otherwise largely similar categorization results. The extent to which this approach is applicable beyond the scenario presented herein requires further investigation.

Background: The Digital Healthcare Act, passed in November 2019, authorizes healthcare providers in Germany to prescribe digital health applications (DiGA) to patients covered by statutory health insurance. If DiGA meet specific efficacy requirements, they may be listed in a special directory maintained by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Due to the lack of well-founded app evaluation tools, the objectives were to assess (I) the evidence quality situation for DiGA in the literature and (II) how DiGA manufacturers deal with this issue, as reflected by the apps available in the aforementioned directory. Methods: A systematic review of the literature on DiGA using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was started on February 4, 2023. Papers addressing the evidence for applications listed in the directory were included, while duplicates and mere study protocols not reporting on data were removed. The remaining publications were used to assess the quality of the evidence or potential gaps in this regard. Results were aggregated in tabular form. Results: The review identified fourteen relevant publications. Six studies suggested inadequate scientific evidence, five mentioned shortcomings of tools for validating DiGA-related evidence, and four publications described a high potential for bias, potentially influencing the validity of the results. Concerns about limited external generalizability were also raised. Conclusions: The literature review found evidence-related gaps that must be addressed with adequate measures. Our findings can serve as a basis for a plea for a more detailed examination of the quality of evidence in the DiGA context.

Background: Cystic fibrosis (CF) continues to be the most common life-limiting chronic pulmonary disease in adolescents and young adults. Treatment of CF demands a high treatment time investment to slow the progression of lung function decline, the most important contributor to morbidity and mortality. Adherence is challenging in CF due to the high treatment burden and the lack of immediate health consequences in case of nonadherence. Lung function decline is particularly pronounced in the transition phase between 12 and 24 years of age. The improvement of self-management and self-responsibility and independence from parents and desire for normalcy are conflicting aspects for many adolescents with CF, which influence adherence to the time-consuming pulmonary therapy. Mobile health (mHealth) care apps could help to support self-management and independence and thereby reconcile seemingly conflicting goals to improve adherence, quality of life, and ultimately CF life expectancy. Objective: This study aimed to (1) assess user behavior and satisfaction among adolescents and young adults with CF over an observation period of three months using an mHealth app; (2) identify areas of improvement for this mHealth app; and (3) compare overall and disease-specific satisfaction, lung function, and anthropometry before and after using the mHealth app. Methods: A total of 27 adolescents and young adults with CF (age range 12-24 years, mean age 16 years, SD 3 years; 14 females, 11 males) used a free mHealth app for three months of whom 25 provided questionnaire data for analysis at the end of the study. Data collection was carried out using questionnaires on usage characteristics and life satisfaction, and standardized assessment of lung function and anthropometry. Results: The use of the reminder function for medication declined from 70% (15/21) of the participants at week 4 to 65% (13/20) at week 8 of the observation period. At the end of the study, only 17% (4/23) of the participants wanted to continue using the app. Nevertheless, 56% (14/25) of participants saw the mobile app as a support for everyday life. Potential improvements targeting hedonistic qualities were identified to improve mHealth app adherence. Comparisons of satisfaction with different life aspects hinted at improvements or stabilization for the subitem respiration and the subitem lack of handicap by CF, suggesting that app use might stabilize certain CF-specific aspects of the weighted satisfaction with life. Lung function and anthropometry were not affected consistently. Conclusions: Most of the patients did not want to continue using the app after the study period. Only a few CF-specific aspects of weighted life satisfaction were possibly stabilized by the mHealth app; clinical parameters were not affected. Adaptation of the functions to adolescent-specific needs could improve the long-term use and thus positively affect the disease course.