Digitale Gesundheitsinterventionen entwickeln, evaluieren und implementieren (Teil I) – Diskussionspapier der Arbeitsgruppe Digital Health des Deutschen Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung (DNVF)

Zusammenfassung

Digitale Interventionen (DI) zu gesundheitsbezogenen Themen gewinnen zunehmend an Bedeutung. Oftmals sind sie komplexe Interventionen, die in einem komplexen Versorgungskontext evaluiert und implementiert werden. Aufgrund der Merkmale digitaler Interventionen ist die Versorgungsforschung vor methodische Herausforderungen gestellt. Daher hat die Arbeitsgruppe Digital Health des Deutschen Netzwerks Versorgungsforschung (DNVF) ein Diskussionspapier erstellt. Darin wird diskutiert, welche Herausforderungen mit der Entwicklung und Evaluation von DI einhergehen. Es werden Lösungsansätze und zukünftige Forschungsbedarfe aufgezeigt.

Abstract

The development and application of digital interventions in health-related topics are gaining momentum in health service research. Digital interventions are often complex and need to be evaluated and implemented in complex settings. Due to their characteristics, this poses methodological challenges for health services research that have to be identified and addressed. Hence, the Working Group on Digital Health of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF) has prepared a discussion paper. This paper discusses methodological, practical and theoretical challenges associated with the development and evaluation of digital interventions from the perspective of health services research. Possible solutions are suggested and future research needs to address these methodological challenges are identified.

Schlüsselwörter

Digital Health - digitale Interventionen - Evaluation - Implementierung - Versorgungsforschung - E-Health

Key words

digital health - digital interventions - E-Health - evaluation - implementation - health services research

Publication History

Article published online:
29 November 2022

• Literatur

• 1 Zeeb H, Pigeot I, Schüz B. Digital Public Health – ein Überblick. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz 2020; 63: 137-144
• 2 WHO. Classification of Digital Health Interventions v1.0A shared language to describe the uses of digital technology for health [Internet]. 2018. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/260480/WHO-RHR-18.06-eng.pdf;jsessionid=E06A96F29EE14D51614B4C25590A04D7?sequence=1
• 3 SVR-Gesundheit. Digitalisierung für Gesundheit Ziele und Rahmenbedingungen eines dynamisch lernenden Gesundheitssystems [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.svr-gesundheit.de/fileadmin/Gutachten/Gutachten_2021/SVR_Gutachten_2021_online_.pdf
• 4 Kramer U, Borges U, Fischer F. et al. DNVF-Memorandum – Gesundheits- und Medizin-Apps (GuMAs). Das Gesundheitswesen 2019; 81: e154-e170
• 5 Vollmar H, Kramer U, Müller H. et al. Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen – Rahmenbedingungen zur Nutzung in Versorgung, Strukturentwicklung und Wissenschaft – Positionspapier der AG Digital Health des DNVF. Das Gesundheitswesen 2017; 79: 1080-1092
• 6 Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G. et al. Evaluating Digital Health Interventions Key Questions and Approaches. Am J Prev Med 2016; 51: 843-851
• 7 Byambasuren O, Sanders S, Beller E. et al. Prescribable mHealth apps identified from an overview of systematic reviews. Npj Digital Medicine 2018; 1: 12
• 8 Kolasa K, Kozinski G. How to Value Digital Health Interventions? A Systematic Literature Review. Int J Environ Res Pu 2020; 17: 2119
• 9 Tokgöz P, Hrynyschyn R, Hafner J. et al. Digital health interventions in prevention, relapse, and therapy of mild and moderate depression: scoping review. JMIR Mental Health 2021; 8 (04) e26268
• 10 Mathews S, D’Arcey J, Tokgöz P. et al. Digital Health Interventions in Prevention, Relapse, and Therapy of Mild and Moderate Depression: Scoping Review. Jmir Ment Heal 2021; 8: e26268
• 11 Timpel P, Oswald S, Schwarz PEH. et al. Mapping the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Interventions in Diabetes, Dyslipidemia, and Hypertension: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e16791
• 12 Shaw T, McGregor D, Brunner M. et al. What is eHealth (6)? Development of a Conceptual Model for eHealth: Qualitative Study with Key Informants. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e324
• 13 WHO. National eHealth Strategy ToolkitOverview [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www.who.int/ehealth/publications/overview.pdf
• 14 Otto L, Harst L, Schlieter H. et al. Towards a Unified Understanding of eHealth and Related Terms – Proposal of a Consolidated Terminological Basis. Proc 11th Int Jt Conf Biomed Eng Syst Technologies 2018; 533-539
• 15 Fischer F, Aust V, Krämer A. eHealth in Deutschland, Anforderungen und Potenziale innovativer Versorgungsstrukturen 2016; 3-23
• 16 Reininghaus U. Ambulatorische Interventionen in der Psychiatrie: das Momentum f?r Ver?nderung im allt?glichen sozialen Kontext. Psychiat Prax 2018; 45: 59-61
• 17 Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ. et al. Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) in Mobile Health: Key Components and Design Principles for Ongoing Health Behavior Support. Ann Behav Med 2016; 52: 1-17
• 18 Lin J, Baumeister H. Internet- und Mobilebasierte Interventionen in der Psychotherapie. Public Heal Forum 2015; 23: 176-179
• 19 Fischer F. Digitale Interventionen in Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung: Welche Form der Evidenz haben wir und welche wird benötigt?. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz 2020; 1-7
• 20 Mühlhauser I, Lenz M, Meyer G. Bewertung von komplexen Interventionen: Eine methodische Herausforderung. 2012; 109 (1–2): A-22. Available from: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=118129
• 21 Robert-Koch-Institut, Lebensmittelsicherheit BL für G und. Evaluation komplexer Interventionsprogramme in der Prävention: Lernende Systeme, lehrreiche Systeme? [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Gesundheitsmonitoring/Gesundheitsberichterstattung/GBEDownloadsB/evaluation_praevention.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
• 22 Koppe G, Guloksuz S, Reininghaus U. et al. Recurrent Neural Networks in Mobile Sampling and Intervention. Schizophrenia Bull 2018; 45: 272-276
• 23 Dockweiler C, Razum O. Digitalisierte Gesundheit: neue Herausforderungen f?r Public Health. Das Gesundheitswesen 2015; 78: 5-7
• 24 ISO. ISO 9241-210:2019(en) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-2:v1:en
• 25 Diekmann A. Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. 2020
• 26 Goodman E, Kuniavsky M, Moed A. Observing the User Experience. 2012
• 27 Sherwin K. Card Sorting: Uncover Users’ Mental Models for Better Information Architecture. 2018; Available from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/card-sorting-definition/
• 28 Baxter K, Courage C, Caine K. Understanding your Users. A Practical Guide to User Research Methods. 2015
• 29 Arnold K, Scheibe M, Müller O. et al. Principles for the evaluation of telemedicine applications: Results of a systematic review and consensus process. Zeitschrift Für Evidenz Fortbildung Und Qual Im Gesundheitswesen. 2016; 117: 9-19
• 30 Kowatsch T, Otto L, Harperink S. et al. A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions. Information Technology 2020; 61: 253-263
• 31 NICE. Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd7
• 32 Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G. et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27: 425-478
• 33 Maramba I, Chatterjee A, Newman C. Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: A scoping review. Int J Med Inform 2019; 126: 95-104
• 34 Peiris D, Miranda JJ, Mohr DC. Going beyond killer apps: building a better mHealth evidence base. Bmj Global Heal 2018; 3: e000676
• 35 Guo C, Ashrafian H, Ghafur S. et al. Challenges for the evaluation of digital health solutions – A call for innovative evidence generation approaches. Npj Digital Medicine 2020; 3: 110
• 36 Henderson M, Donnachie C. Improving eHealth intervention development and quality of evaluations. The Lancet Digital Health 2019; 1: e194-e195
• 37 Pawloski PA, Brooks GA, Nielsen ME. et al. A Systematic Review of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Clinical Oncology Practice. J Natl Compr Canc Ne 2019; 17: 331-338
• 38 Champion KE, Parmenter B, McGowan C. et al. Effectiveness of school-based eHealth interventions to prevent multiple lifestyle risk behaviours among adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digital Heal 2019; 1: e206-e221
• 39 Vilardaga R, Casellas-Pujol E, McClernon JF. et al. Mobile Applications for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence. Curr Addict Reports 2019; 6: 86-97
• 40 Linardon J, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. Attrition and Adherence in Smartphone-Delivered Interventions for Mental Health Problems: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review. J Consult Clin Psych 2019; 88: 1-13
• 41 Reinhardt G, Schwarz PE, Harst L. Non-use of telemedicine: A scoping review. Health Inform J. 2021; 27 14604582211043148
• 42 Neugebauer EAM, Rath A, Antoine S-L. et al. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials on medical devices. Trials. 2017; 18: 427
• 43 Timpel P, Cesena FHY, da Silva Costa C. et al. Efficacy of gamification-based smartphone application for weight loss in overweight and obese adolescents: study protocol for a phase II randomized controlled trial. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metabolism 2018; 9: 167-176
• 44 Stalujanis E, Neufeld J, Stalder MG. et al. Induction of Efficacy Expectancies in an Ambulatory Smartphone-Based Digital Placebo Mental Health Intervention: Randomized Controlled Trial. Jmir Mhealth Uhealth 2021; 9: e20329
• 45 Gensorowsky D, Lampe D, Hasemann L. et al. „Alternative Studiendesigns“ zur Bewertung digitaler Gesundheitsanwendungen – eine echte Alternative?. Zeitschrift Für Evidenz Fortbildung Und Qual Im Gesundheitswesen 2021; 161: 33-41
• 46 Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Choodari-Oskooei B. et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. Bmc Med 2018; 16: 29
• 47 Chen YHJ, DeMets DL, Lan KKG. Some drop-the-loser designs for monitoring multiple doses. Stat Med 2010; 29: 1793-1807
• 48 Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J. Cluster randomized controlled trials. J Eval Clin Pract 2005; 11: 479-483
• 49 Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 28: 182-191
• 50 Beard E, Lewis JJ, Copas A. et al. Stepped wedge randomised controlled trials: systematic review of studies published between 2010 and 2014. Trials 2015; 16: 353
• 51 (BfArM) B für A und M. DiGA-Verzeichnis [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://diga.bfarm.de/de
• 52 Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Methodologies for assessing telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2012; 81: 1-11
• 53 Wilson K, Bell C, Wilson L. et al. Agile research to complement agile development: a proposal for an mHealth research lifecycle. Npj Digital Medicine 2018; 1: 46
• 54 Angelescu K, Sauerland S. Mobile Gesundheitsanwendungen: Welche Evidenz ist n-tig?. Dtsch Arztebl International [Internet] 2019; 116 A-1057 Available from: https://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=207821
• 55 Dick S, O’Connor Y, Heavin C. Approaches to Mobile Health Evaluation: A Comparative Study A mHealth Evaluation Comparison Study. Inform Syst Manage 2019; 37: 1-18
• 56 Philipp S-P. Digitalisierung der Versorgungsforschung – Versorgungsforschung zur Digitalisierung. In Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer; Berlin Heidelberg: 2019. p 175-184
• 57 Moore GF, Evans RE, Hawkins J. et al. From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: Future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation-us 2019; 25: 23-45