Search

Abstract Background High-dose long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) has been associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations. Therefore, the evidence-based German guideline on LTOT for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) recommends to only exceed the maximum daily dose (MDD) of opioids in exceptional cases. This study aimed to determine the portion of LTOT patients who exceeded the guideline-recommended MDD and identify predictors of exceeding in administrative claims data. Methods The retrospective observational analysis of opioid prescriptions in patients receiving LTOT for CNCP was based on administrative claims by a large German statutory health insurance company. Patients with at least two quarters of opioid prescriptions between January 2018 and June 2019 were included and followed up for two years. Predictors were identified by logistic regression. In addition, the number of patients still in opioid therapy and the extent of exceeded MDDs were analyzed over time. Results The sample consisted of 113,475 patients. Overall, 10.5% of the patients exceeded the guideline-recommended MDD averaged over the observation period. Strong predictors for exceeding the MDD were receiving opioid prescriptions from > 7 physicians (OR = 7.66, p

BackgroundSince fall 2020, mobile health (mHealth) apps have become an integral part of the German health care system. The belief that mHealth apps have the potential to make the health care system more efficient, close gaps in care, and improve the economic outcomes related to health is unwavering and already partially confirmed. Nevertheless, problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps usually remain unconsidered. ObjectiveThe focus groups and interviews conducted in this study aim to shed light on problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps from the perspective of patients. MethodsGuided focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with patients with a disease for which an approved mHealth app was available at the time of the interviews. Participants were recruited via self-help groups. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to a qualitative content analysis. The content analysis was based on 10 problem categories (“validity,” “usability,” “technology,” “use and adherence,” “data privacy and security,” “patient-physician relationship,” “knowledge and skills,” “individuality,” “implementation,” and “costs”) identified in a previously conducted scoping review. Participants were asked to fill out an additional questionnaire about their sociodemographic data and about their use of technology. ResultsA total of 38 patients were interviewed in 5 focus groups (3 onsite and 2 web-based) and 5 individual web-based interviews. The additional questionnaire was completed by 32 of the participants. Patients presented with a variety of different diseases, such as arthrosis, tinnitus, depression, or lung cancer. Overall, 16% (5/32) of the participants had already been prescribed an app. During the interviews, all 10 problem categories were discussed and considered important by patients. A myriad of problem manifestations could be identified for each category. This study shows that there are relevant problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps from the perspective of patients, which warrant further attention. ConclusionsThere are essentially 3 different areas of problems in the context of mHealth apps that could be addressed to improve care: quality of the respective mHealth app, its integration into health care, and the expandable digital literacy of patients.

BackgroundThe digitization of health care led to a steady increase in the adoption and use of mobile health (mHealth) apps. Germany is the first country in the world to cover the costs of mHealth apps through statutory health insurance. Although the benefits of mHealth apps are discussed in detail, aspects of problems and barriers are rarely studied. ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to map and categorize the evidence on problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps. MethodsSystematic searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. Additional searches were conducted on JMIR Publications and on websites of relevant international organizations. The inclusion criteria were publications dealing with apps similar to those approved in the German health care system, publications addressing problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps, and articles published between January 1, 2015, and June 8, 2021. Study selection was performed by 2 reviewers. The manuscript was drafted according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. The analysis of the included publications and categorization of problems and hurdles were performed using MAXQDA (VERBI Software GmbH). ResultsThe database search identified 1479 publications. Of the 1479 publications, 21 (1.42%) met the inclusion criteria. A further 8 publications were included from citation searching and searching in JMIR Publications. The identified publications were analyzed for problems and barriers. Problems and barriers were classified into 10 categories (“validity,” “usability,” “technology,” “use and adherence,” “data privacy and security,” “patient-physician relationship,” “knowledge and skills,” “individuality,” “implementation,” and “costs”). The most frequently mentioned categories were use and adherence (eg, incorporating the app into daily life or dropouts from use; n=22) and usability (eg, ease of use and design; n=19). ConclusionsThe search identified various problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps. Although problems at the app level (such as usability) are studied frequently, problems at the system level are addressed rather vaguely. To ensure optimal use of and care with mHealth apps, it is essential to consider all types of problems and barriers. Therefore, researchers and policy makers should have a special focus on this issue to identify the needs for quality assurance. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/32702