Challenges and Alternatives to Evaluation Methods and Regulation Approaches for Medical Apps as Mobile Medical Devices: International and Multidisciplinary Focus Group Discussion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The rapid proliferation of medical apps has transformed the health care landscape by giving patients and health care providers unprecedented access to personalized health information and services. However, concerns regarding the effectiveness and safety of medical apps have raised questions regarding the efficacy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the evaluation of such apps and as a requirement for their regulation as mobile medical devices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to address this issue by investigating alternative methods, apart from RCTs, for evaluating and regulating medical apps. METHODS: Using a qualitative approach, a focus group study with 46 international and multidisciplinary public health experts was conducted at the 17th World Congress on Public Health in May 2023 in Rome, Italy. The group was split into 3 subgroups to gather in-depth insights into alternative approaches for evaluating and regulating medical apps. We conducted a policy analysis on the current regulation of medical apps as mobile medical devices for the 4 most represented countries in the workshop: Italy, Germany, Canada, and Australia. We developed a logic model that combines the evaluation and regulation domains on the basis of these findings. RESULTS: The focus group discussions explored the strengths and limitations of the current evaluation and regulation methods and identified potential alternatives that could enhance the quality and safety of medical apps. Although RCTs were only explicitly mentioned in the German regulatory system as one of many options, an analysis of chosen evaluation methods for German apps on prescription pointed toward a "scientific reflex" where RCTs are always the chosen evaluation method. However, this method has substantial limitations when used to evaluate digital interventions such as medical apps. Comparable results were observed during the focus group discussions, where participants expressed similar experiences with their own evaluation approaches. In addition, the participants highlighted numerous alternatives to RCTs. These alternatives can be used at different points during the life cycle of a digital intervention to assess its efficacy and potential harm to users. CONCLUSIONS: It is crucial to recognize that unlike analog tools, digital interventions constantly evolve, posing challenges to inflexible evaluation methods such as RCTs. Potential risks include high dropout rates, decreased adherence, and nonsignificant results. However, existing regulations do not explicitly advocate for other evaluation methodologies. Our research highlighted the necessity of overcoming the gap between regulatory demands to demonstrate safety and efficacy of medical apps and evolving scientific practices, ensuring that digital health innovation is evaluated and regulated in a way that considers the unique characteristics of mobile medical devices.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,705 | 0,497 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,051 |
| Communication savante | 0,029 | 0,042 |
| Science ouverte | 0,013 | 0,026 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,022 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».