PERSPECTIVE: The Digital Health App Policy Landscape: Regulatory Gaps and Choices Through the Lens of Mental Health.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Kelila Kahane, Josie François, John Torous
{"title":"PERSPECTIVE: The Digital Health App Policy Landscape: Regulatory Gaps and Choices Through the Lens of Mental Health.","authors":"Kelila Kahane,&nbsp;Josie François,&nbsp;John Torous","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interest in and use of mental health apps have grown over the past decade, and now further with the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital mental health offers potential to increase access to care, but tangible risks around safety and poor efficacy remain common.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conduct a select analysis of U.S. and international published evidence, government websites, grey literature, and media outlets. We present the marked discordance around digital mental health policy, as these frameworks grapple with the challenges of regulating in this sphere.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across the world, there is no consensus around evaluation with countries piloting or proposing different models. Common barriers include the defining the scope and risk of health apps, creating processes able to update evaluation with software updates, lacking better data to inform evaluation, and educating users to the risks and benefits.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We propose four next steps for guiding any future policy: (i) clear clarification of the categorical status of mental health apps; (ii) objective methodology for assessing apps on a premarket basis which does not solely rely on self-reporting; (iii) well-designed, detailed procedures for iterative post-market app review; (iv) clinician and patient education which empowers users to make smart mental health app choices.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"24 3","pages":"101-108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interest in and use of mental health apps have grown over the past decade, and now further with the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital mental health offers potential to increase access to care, but tangible risks around safety and poor efficacy remain common.

Methods: We conduct a select analysis of U.S. and international published evidence, government websites, grey literature, and media outlets. We present the marked discordance around digital mental health policy, as these frameworks grapple with the challenges of regulating in this sphere.

Results: Across the world, there is no consensus around evaluation with countries piloting or proposing different models. Common barriers include the defining the scope and risk of health apps, creating processes able to update evaluation with software updates, lacking better data to inform evaluation, and educating users to the risks and benefits.

Discussion: We propose four next steps for guiding any future policy: (i) clear clarification of the categorical status of mental health apps; (ii) objective methodology for assessing apps on a premarket basis which does not solely rely on self-reporting; (iii) well-designed, detailed procedures for iterative post-market app review; (iv) clinician and patient education which empowers users to make smart mental health app choices.

观点:数字健康应用程序政策前景:从心理健康的角度看监管差距和选择。
背景:在过去十年中,人们对心理健康应用程序的兴趣和使用有所增长,现在随着COVID-19大流行进一步增长。数字精神卫生提供了增加获得护理机会的潜力,但围绕安全和疗效差的有形风险仍然普遍存在。方法:我们对美国和国际上发表的证据、政府网站、灰色文献和媒体进行了选择性分析。我们提出了围绕数字精神卫生政策的明显不一致,因为这些框架努力应对这一领域的监管挑战。结果:在世界范围内,各国试点或提出不同的模式,对评估没有达成共识。常见的障碍包括定义健康应用程序的范围和风险,创建能够通过软件更新更新评估的流程,缺乏更好的数据来为评估提供信息,以及教育用户了解风险和收益。讨论:我们提出了指导未来政策的四个步骤:(i)明确澄清心理健康应用程序的分类地位;(ii)在上市前评估应用程序的客观方法,而不仅仅依赖于自我报告;(iii)精心设计的、详细的迭代上市后应用审查程序;(iv)临床医生和患者教育,使用户能够做出明智的心理健康应用选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信