Digital Therapeutic Care and Decision Support Interventions for People With Low Back Pain: Systematic Review

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of worldwide years lost because of disability, with a tremendous economic burden for health care systems. Digital therapeutic care (DTC) programs provide a scalable, universally accessible, and low-cost approach to the multidisciplinary treatment of LBP. Moreover, novel decision support interventions such as personalized feedback messages, push notifications, and data-driven activity recommendations amplify DTC by guiding the user through the program while aiming to increase overall engagement and sustainable behavior change. ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to synthesize recent scientific literature on the impact of DTC apps for people with LBP and outline the implementation of add-on decision support interventions, including their effect on user retention and attrition rates. MethodsWe searched bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, from March 1, 2016, to October 15, 2020, in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and conducted this review based on related previously published systematic reviews. Besides randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we also included study designs with the evidence level of at least a retrospective comparative study. This enables the consideration of real-world user-generated data and provides information regarding the adoption and effectiveness of DTC apps in a real-life setting. For the appraisal of the risk of bias, we used the Risk of Bias 2 Tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool for the RCTs and nonrandomized trials, respectively. The included studies were narratively synthesized regarding primary and secondary outcome measures, DTC components, applied decision support interventions, user retention, and attrition rates. ResultsWe retrieved 1388 citations, of which 12 studies are included in this review. Of the 12 studies, 6 (50%) were RCTs and 6 (50%) were nonrandomized trials. In all included studies, lower pain levels and increased functionality compared with baseline values were observed in the DTC intervention group. A between-group comparison revealed significant improvements in pain and functionality levels in 67% (4/6) of the RCTs. The study population was mostly homogeneous, with predominantly female, young to middle-aged participants of normal to moderate weight. The methodological quality assessment revealed moderate to high risks of biases, especially in the nonrandomized trials. ConclusionsThis systematic review demonstrates the benefits of DTC for people with LBP. There is also evidence that decision support interventions benefit overall engagement with the app and increase participants’ ability to self-manage their recovery process. Finally, including retrospective evaluation studies of real-world user-generated data in future systematic reviews of digital health intervention trials can reveal new insights into the benefits, challenges, and real-life adoption of DTC programs

Implementation and evaluation of personal genetic testing as part of genomics analysis courses in German universities

Abstract Purpose Due to the increasing application of genome analysis and interpretation in medical disciplines, professionals require adequate education. Here, we present the implementation of personal genotyping as an educational tool in two genomics courses targeting Digital Health students at the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI) and medical students at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). Methods We compared and evaluated the courses and the students’ perceptions on the course setup using questionnaires. Results During the course, students changed their attitudes towards genotyping (HPI: 79% [15 of 19], TUM: 47% [25 of 53]). Predominantly, students became more critical of personal genotyping (HPI: 73% [11 of 15], TUM: 72% [18 of 25]) and most students stated that genetic analyses should not be allowed without genetic counseling (HPI: 79% [15 of 19], TUM: 70% [37 of 53]). Students found the personal genotyping component useful (HPI: 89% [17 of 19], TUM: 92% [49 of 53]) and recommended its inclusion in future courses (HPI: 95% [18 of 19], TUM: 98% [52 of 53]). Conclusion Students perceived the personal genotyping component as valuable in the described genomics courses. The implementation described here can serve as an example for future courses in Europe