Outcome domains and measurement instruments of patient-relevant improvement of structure and processes as a new set of outcomes for evaluating and approving digital health applications: systematic review

Madlen Scheibe, Andreas Knapp, Lorenz Harst, Jochen Schmitt
{"title":"Outcome domains and measurement instruments of patient-relevant improvement of structure and processes as a new set of outcomes for evaluating and approving digital health applications: systematic review","authors":"Madlen Scheibe, Andreas Knapp, Lorenz Harst, Jochen Schmitt","doi":"10.1007/s44250-023-00046-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background In October 2020, digital health applications (DiGAs) became part of standard care in Germany. For approval, DiGA manufacturers must demonstrate medical benefit or patient-relevant improvement of structure and processes (PISP). PISP refers to an innovative outcome core area in terms of proof of benefits and reimbursement decisions. These are subdivided into 9 outcome domains, including for example health literacy, facilitating access to care, and coping with illness-related difficulties in everyday life. Their implementation aims at empowering patients, encouraging shared decision-making, and increasing patient-centeredness in healthcare delivery. Given the novelty of PISP, no standardized set of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments currently exists to operationalize the domains. Learning from previous evaluation studies can help operationalize and standardize PISPs for evaluation studies of digital health applications. Therefore, we investigated the outcomes and outcome measurement instruments, used in controlled trials to assess DiGA-compliant applications, published before the Digital Health Applications Ordinance of April 2020. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 01/2015 and 04/2020, via MEDLINE and Embase, complemented by forward/backward searches. Controlled trials assessing interventions adhering to the definition of DiGA were eligible, if they applied a validated outcome measurement instrument, and if results were presented in German or English. Title-abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and narrative synthesis were conducted independently by two researchers. Results Out of 2,671 references identified, 6 studies collecting a total of 48 outcomes were included. 14 outcomes (29.2%) addressed PISP by using 13 different measurement instruments. The outcomes corresponded to 5 of 9 PISP outcome domains with health literacy being the most common (7/14, 50.0%). Conclusions This review provides an overview of the characteristics of PISPs used in previous evaluation studies of DiGA-compliant applications. It shows which outcomes and validated outcome measurement instruments can be used to measure PISP and where knowledge is still lacking. These results serve as a starting point for operationalizing and standardizing PISPs and help to increase the outcome measurement quality of PISPs.","PeriodicalId":72826,"journal":{"name":"Discover health systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discover health systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44250-023-00046-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background In October 2020, digital health applications (DiGAs) became part of standard care in Germany. For approval, DiGA manufacturers must demonstrate medical benefit or patient-relevant improvement of structure and processes (PISP). PISP refers to an innovative outcome core area in terms of proof of benefits and reimbursement decisions. These are subdivided into 9 outcome domains, including for example health literacy, facilitating access to care, and coping with illness-related difficulties in everyday life. Their implementation aims at empowering patients, encouraging shared decision-making, and increasing patient-centeredness in healthcare delivery. Given the novelty of PISP, no standardized set of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments currently exists to operationalize the domains. Learning from previous evaluation studies can help operationalize and standardize PISPs for evaluation studies of digital health applications. Therefore, we investigated the outcomes and outcome measurement instruments, used in controlled trials to assess DiGA-compliant applications, published before the Digital Health Applications Ordinance of April 2020. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 01/2015 and 04/2020, via MEDLINE and Embase, complemented by forward/backward searches. Controlled trials assessing interventions adhering to the definition of DiGA were eligible, if they applied a validated outcome measurement instrument, and if results were presented in German or English. Title-abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and narrative synthesis were conducted independently by two researchers. Results Out of 2,671 references identified, 6 studies collecting a total of 48 outcomes were included. 14 outcomes (29.2%) addressed PISP by using 13 different measurement instruments. The outcomes corresponded to 5 of 9 PISP outcome domains with health literacy being the most common (7/14, 50.0%). Conclusions This review provides an overview of the characteristics of PISPs used in previous evaluation studies of DiGA-compliant applications. It shows which outcomes and validated outcome measurement instruments can be used to measure PISP and where knowledge is still lacking. These results serve as a starting point for operationalizing and standardizing PISPs and help to increase the outcome measurement quality of PISPs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与患者相关的结构和流程改进的结果域和测量工具作为评估和批准数字健康应用的一组新结果:系统审查
2020年10月,数字健康应用(DiGAs)成为德国标准医疗的一部分。为了获得批准,DiGA制造商必须证明医疗效益或与患者相关的结构和流程改进(PISP)。PISP是指在福利证明和报销决定方面的创新成果核心领域。这些目标被细分为9个成果领域,例如包括卫生知识普及、促进获得保健以及应对日常生活中与疾病有关的困难。它们的实施旨在赋予患者权力,鼓励共同决策,并在医疗保健服务中增加以患者为中心。鉴于PISP的新颖性,目前还没有标准化的结果集和结果测量工具来操作这些领域。从以往的评估研究中学习,有助于实施数字健康应用评估研究的pisp并使其标准化。因此,我们调查了在对照试验中使用的结果和结果测量工具,以评估在2020年4月《数字健康应用条例》之前发布的符合diga的应用。方法通过MEDLINE和Embase对2015年1月至2020年4月间发表的研究进行系统综述,并辅以向前/向后检索。根据DiGA定义评估干预措施的对照试验是合格的,如果它们应用了有效的结果测量工具,并且结果以德语或英语呈现。题目摘要筛选、全文筛选、数据提取和叙事综合由两位研究者独立完成。结果在2671篇文献中,纳入了6项研究,共收集了48个结果。14个结果(29.2%)通过使用13种不同的测量仪器来解决PISP问题。结果与9个PISP结果域中的5个相对应,其中健康素养最为常见(7/14,50.0%)。本综述综述了在DiGA-compliant应用的先前评估研究中使用的pisp的特点。它显示了可以使用哪些结果和经过验证的结果测量工具来测量PISP,以及仍然缺乏知识的地方。这些结果可作为pisp实施和标准化的起点,并有助于提高pisp的结果测量质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maternal and child health services at Hiwot Fana comprehensive specialized hospital, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia: a descriptive analysis based on hospital secondary data Comparison of explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate drug prescribing among the elderly: a narrative review Testing asymptomatic mental health patients for COVID-19 overburdens hospital resources Validation of the interdisciplinary Norwegian vision assessment tool KROSS in stroke patients admitted to hospital or rehabilitation services ICF-based multidisciplinary approach to rehabilitation of people with disabilities: perspective and current practices within the Health, Rehabilitation, Integration, and Research Center in Lebanon
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1