Mobile Gesundheitstechnologien, soziale Gerechtigkeit und populationsbezogene Vulnerabilitäten

Mobile Gesundheitstechnologien (mHealth) fördern den Trend hin zu Eigenverantwortung und Selbstmanagement. Ziel des Beitrags ist es, am Beispiel von Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 (T2DM) die Diskussion zu mHealth, Eigenverantwortung und Gerechtigkeit – welche es bisher nur in Ansätzen gibt – aus einer Public-Health-ethischen Perspektive zu vertiefen. Dabei zeigt sich, dass mHealth im Bereich T2DM soziale Gesundheitsgerechtigkeit einerseits verbessern, andererseits aber auch soziale Gesundheitsungerechtigkeiten verschärfen kann. Aus einer gerechtigkeitsfokussierten, Public-Health-ethischen Perspektive auf T2DM-mHealth ist es notwendig, besser zu verstehen, ob und wie vulnerable Bevölkerungsgruppen bei mHealth-Entwicklung und -Einsatz mitbedacht werden, wie sie die Nutzung der Technologie erleben, welche sozialepidemiologischen Auswirkungen der zunehmende Einsatz von mHealth haben kann, welche gesundheitlichen Ungleichheiten im Bereich T2DM ungerecht sind, inwieweit die Eigenverantwortung in die Hände der Nutzenden gelegt werden soll und wo die Grenzen der Eigenverantwortung liegen. Die Berücksichtigung der sozialen Diversität und der sozialen Determinanten von Gesundheit ist ein stetiger Prozess und muss alle Phasen der Entwicklung und des Einsatzes von mHealth durchziehen

Perceptions of Digital Health Education Among European Medical Students: Mixed Methods Survey

Background: Digital health technologies hold promise to enhance patient-related outcomes, to support health care staff by reducing their workload, and to improve the coordination of care. As key users of digital health technologies, health care workers are crucial to enable a meaningful digital transformation of health care. Digital health literacy and digital skills should become prerequisite competencies for health professionals to facilitate the implementation and leverage the potential of digital technologies to improve health. Objective: We aimed to assess European medical students' perceived knowledge and opinions toward digital health, the status of digital health implementation in medical education, and the students' most pressing needs. Methods: The explanatory design of our mixed methods study was based on an online, anonymous, self-administered survey targeted toward European medical students. A linear regression analysis was used to identify the influence of the year of medical studies on the responses. Additional analysis was performed by grouping the responses by the self-evaluated frequency of eHealth technology use. Written responses to four qualitative questions in the survey were analyzed using an inductive approach. Results: The survey received a total of 451 responses from 39 European countries, and there were respondents for every year of medical studies. The majority of respondents saw advantages in the use of digital health. While 40.6% (183/451) felt prepared to work in a digitized health care system, more than half (240/451, 53.2%) evaluated their eHealth skills as poor or very poor. Medical students considered lack of education to be the reason for this, with 84.9% (383/451) agreeing or strongly agreeing that more digital health education should be implemented in the medical curriculum. Students demanded introductory and specific eHealth courses covering data management, ethical aspects, legal frameworks, research and entrepreneurial opportunities, role in public health and health systems, communication skills, and practical training. The emphasis lay on tailoring learning to future job requirements and interprofessional education. Conclusions: This study shows a lack of digital health-related formats in medical education and a perceived lack of digital health literacy among European medical students. Our findings indicate a gap between the willingness of medical students to take an active role by becoming key players in the digital transformation of health care and the education that they receive through their faculties

RC feasibility study

This feasibility study of the electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROM) system compared to usual care is a two-centre, non-randomised, open-label study coordinated by the Digital Psychiatry Research Group at the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The aim is to assess the feasibility of an app-based recording of ePROMs in patients with severe psychiatric disorders (F20 paranoid schizophrenia, F25 schizoaffective disorders, F31 bipolar affective disorder, F32/F33 severe/ recurrent major depression) treated in outpatient units. Further objectives are to examine user acceptability and to assess parameters related to health-related quality of life, psychopathology, general functioning, medical adherence, as well as use of health care services during the intervention period

Remote measurement based care (RMBC) interventions for mental health-Protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundPoor management of mental illnesses is associated with lower treatment adherence, chronification, avoidable re-hospitalisations, and high costs. Remote measurement based care (RMBC) interventions have gained increasing relevance due to its potential in providing a comprehensive and patient-centric approach to mental health management.ObjectivesThe systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing evidence on the use of RMBC for patients with mental illness and to examine the effectiveness of RMBC interventions in alleviating disorder-specific symptoms, reducing relapse and improving recovery-oriented outcomes, global functioning, and quality of life.Methods and analysisOur multidisciplinary research team will develop a comprehensive search strategy, adapted to each electronic database (PubMed, Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO) to be examined systematically. Studies with patients formally diagnosed by the International Classification of Diseases or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which include assessment of self-reported psychiatric symptoms will be included. Publications will be reviewed by teams of independent researchers. Quality of studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Outcomes cover symptom-focused or disease-specific outcomes, relapse, recovery-focused outcomes, global functioning, quality of life and acceptability of the intervention. Further data that will be extracted includes study characteristics, target population, intervention, and tracking characteristics. Data will be synthesised qualitatively, summarising findings of the systematic review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be considered for meta-analysis if data is found comparable in terms of mental illness, study design and outcomes. Cumulative evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Trial registrationTrial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022356176