Digital Health Apps in the Context of Dementia: Questionnaire Study to Assess the Likelihood of Use Among Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age-related diseases such as dementia are playing an increasingly important role in global population development. Thus, prevention, diagnostics, and interventions require more accessibility, which can be realized through digital health apps. With the app on prescription, Germany made history by being the first country worldwide to offer physicians the possibility to prescribe and reimburse digital health apps as of the end of the year 2020. OBJECTIVE: Considering the lack of knowledge about correlations with the likelihood of use among physicians, this study aimed to address the question of what makes the use of a digital health app by physicians more likely. METHODS: We developed and validated a novel measurement tool-the Digital Health Compliance Questionnaire (DHCQ)-in an interdisciplinary collaboration of experts to assess the role of proposed factors in the likelihood of using a health app. Therefore, a web-based survey was conducted to evaluate the likelihood of using a digital app called DemPredict to screen for Alzheimer dementia. Within this survey, 5 latent dimensions (acceptance, attitude toward technology, technology experience, payment for time of use, and effort of collection), the dependent variable likelihood of use, and answers to exploratory questions were recorded and tested within directed correlations. Following a non-probability-sampling strategy, the study was completed by 331 physicians from Germany in the German language, of whom 301 (90.9%) fulfilled the study criteria (eg, being in regular contact with patients with dementia). These data were analyzed using a range of statistical methods to validate the dimensions of the DHCQ. RESULTS: The DHCQ revealed good test theoretical measures-it showed excellent fit indexes (Tucker-Lewis index=0.98; comparative fit index=0.982; standardized root mean square residual=0.073; root mean square error of approximation=0.037), good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.83), and signs of moderate to large correlations between the DHCQ dimensions and the dependent variable. The correlations between the variables acceptance, attitude toward technology, technology experience, and payment for the time of use and the dependent variable likelihood of use ranged from 0.29 to 0.79, and the correlation between effort of the collection and likelihood of use was -0.80. In addition, we found high levels of skepticism regarding data protection, and the age of the participants was found to be negatively related to their technical experience and attitude toward technology. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the results, increased communication between the medical and technology sectors and significantly more awareness raising are recommended to make the use of digital health apps more attractive to physicians as they can be adjusted to their everyday needs. Further research could explore the connection between areas such as adherence on the patient side and its impact on the likelihood of use by physicians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".