在加泰罗尼亚健康应用程序评估框架中集成CEN ISO/TS 82304-2:比较案例研究。

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Berta Llebot Casajuana, Petra Hoogendoorn, Maria Villalobos-Quesada, Carme Pratdepàdua Bufill
{"title":"在加泰罗尼亚健康应用程序评估框架中集成CEN ISO/TS 82304-2:比较案例研究。","authors":"Berta Llebot Casajuana, Petra Hoogendoorn, Maria Villalobos-Quesada, Carme Pratdepàdua Bufill","doi":"10.2196/67858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health apps are increasingly being used to promote health, manage diseases, and deliver health care services. Still, there is scarce objective information regarding their quality beyond the required Conformité Européenne mark for medical apps, leading to potential risks for users. To address these challenges, several authorities have developed health app assessment frameworks. In 2017, the TIC Salut Social Foundation (FTSS) in Catalonia developed its own health app assessment framework, which has been in use since that year. The publication of CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 (abbreviated as 82304-2)-a Technical Specification for assessing health apps-and the cocreation of the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook for certified assessment organizations provide a unique opportunity to harmonize app assessments across the European Union.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of the FTSS assessment framework with 82304-2 to explore the integration of 82304-2 in Catalonia. Our broader aim was to provide this methodology for health authorities elsewhere to consider integrating 82304-2 or other evaluation frameworks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the comparative analysis, a mixed methods approach was used, combining a qualitative case study with a quantitative analysis of the 2 frameworks. The qualitative evaluation covered rationale for assessment, framework characteristics, governance, workflows, quality aspects, and quality requirements. For the quantitative analysis, all FTSS and 82304-2 requirements were translated into concepts and subconcepts. A scoring system identified matches of the frameworks with these subconcepts, with scores ranging from 0 (no match) to 0.5 (partial match) and 1 (full match). Integration was evaluated considering several scenarios, including adopting the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook, adopting the 82304-2 requirements, adapting the 82304-2 requirements to local needs, and maintaining the current FTSS framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main difference between the frameworks was the app usage-based assessment (FTSS) versus evidence- and app usage-based assessment (82304-2). All 120 FTSS requirements and 74 quality aspect-related 82304-2 requirements were translated into 78 concepts and 97 subconcepts. Overall, 48% (47/97) of the subconcepts were found in both frameworks, 39% (37.5/97) were specific to 82304-2, and 13% (12.5/97) were specific to FTSS. All 82304-2-specific subconcepts and thus all 82304-2 requirements were found to be relevant to FTSS. FTSS decided to integrate (adopt and adapt) all 74 82304-2 requirements. In total, 5 FTSS-specific requirements were included in the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook, while another 4 rigor-enhancing requirements, 1 scope-expanding requirement, and 1 context-specific requirement would be assessed on top.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The comprehensive comparative analysis of the FTSS framework and 82304-2 enabled FTSS decision-making to integrate all 82304-2 quality requirements and adopt the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook in the future. The many new and all relevant 82304-2 concepts, the rigor of the handbook, and the few remaining FTSS-specific requirements are expected to be indicative of 82304-2's potential to make harmonized, robust health app assessments common in Catalonia and elsewhere. FTSS encourages other authorities to perform a similar evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":14756,"journal":{"name":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","volume":"13 ","pages":"e67858"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12154936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 in the Catalan Health App Assessment Framework: Comparative Case Study.\",\"authors\":\"Berta Llebot Casajuana, Petra Hoogendoorn, Maria Villalobos-Quesada, Carme Pratdepàdua Bufill\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/67858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health apps are increasingly being used to promote health, manage diseases, and deliver health care services. Still, there is scarce objective information regarding their quality beyond the required Conformité Européenne mark for medical apps, leading to potential risks for users. To address these challenges, several authorities have developed health app assessment frameworks. In 2017, the TIC Salut Social Foundation (FTSS) in Catalonia developed its own health app assessment framework, which has been in use since that year. The publication of CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 (abbreviated as 82304-2)-a Technical Specification for assessing health apps-and the cocreation of the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook for certified assessment organizations provide a unique opportunity to harmonize app assessments across the European Union.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of the FTSS assessment framework with 82304-2 to explore the integration of 82304-2 in Catalonia. Our broader aim was to provide this methodology for health authorities elsewhere to consider integrating 82304-2 or other evaluation frameworks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the comparative analysis, a mixed methods approach was used, combining a qualitative case study with a quantitative analysis of the 2 frameworks. The qualitative evaluation covered rationale for assessment, framework characteristics, governance, workflows, quality aspects, and quality requirements. For the quantitative analysis, all FTSS and 82304-2 requirements were translated into concepts and subconcepts. A scoring system identified matches of the frameworks with these subconcepts, with scores ranging from 0 (no match) to 0.5 (partial match) and 1 (full match). Integration was evaluated considering several scenarios, including adopting the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook, adopting the 82304-2 requirements, adapting the 82304-2 requirements to local needs, and maintaining the current FTSS framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main difference between the frameworks was the app usage-based assessment (FTSS) versus evidence- and app usage-based assessment (82304-2). All 120 FTSS requirements and 74 quality aspect-related 82304-2 requirements were translated into 78 concepts and 97 subconcepts. Overall, 48% (47/97) of the subconcepts were found in both frameworks, 39% (37.5/97) were specific to 82304-2, and 13% (12.5/97) were specific to FTSS. All 82304-2-specific subconcepts and thus all 82304-2 requirements were found to be relevant to FTSS. FTSS decided to integrate (adopt and adapt) all 74 82304-2 requirements. In total, 5 FTSS-specific requirements were included in the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook, while another 4 rigor-enhancing requirements, 1 scope-expanding requirement, and 1 context-specific requirement would be assessed on top.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The comprehensive comparative analysis of the FTSS framework and 82304-2 enabled FTSS decision-making to integrate all 82304-2 quality requirements and adopt the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook in the future. The many new and all relevant 82304-2 concepts, the rigor of the handbook, and the few remaining FTSS-specific requirements are expected to be indicative of 82304-2's potential to make harmonized, robust health app assessments common in Catalonia and elsewhere. FTSS encourages other authorities to perform a similar evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR mHealth and uHealth\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e67858\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12154936/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR mHealth and uHealth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/67858\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR mHealth and uHealth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/67858","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:健康应用程序越来越多地被用于促进健康、管理疾病和提供医疗保健服务。尽管如此,除了医疗应用程序所要求的conformit europsamenne标志之外,关于它们的质量的客观信息很少,这给用户带来了潜在的风险。为了应对这些挑战,一些权威机构开发了健康应用评估框架。2017年,加泰罗尼亚的TIC Salut社会基金会(FTSS)开发了自己的健康应用程序评估框架,自当年以来一直在使用。CEN ISO/TS 82304-2(简称82304-2)-评估健康应用的技术规范的发布,以及为认证评估组织共同创建的Label2Enable 82304-2手册,为协调整个欧盟的应用评估提供了独特的机会。目的:本研究旨在对FTSS评估框架与82304-2进行比较分析,探讨82304-2在加泰罗尼亚地区的整合情况。我们更广泛的目标是为其他地方的卫生当局提供这种方法,以考虑整合82304-2或其他评估框架。方法:采用混合方法进行对比分析,将定性案例研究与定量分析相结合。定性评估涵盖了评估的基本原理、框架特征、治理、工作流、质量方面和质量需求。为了进行定量分析,将所有FTSS和82304-2需求转换为概念和子概念。评分系统识别框架与这些子概念的匹配,评分范围从0(不匹配)到0.5(部分匹配)和1(完全匹配)。集成评估考虑了几种情况,包括采用Label2Enable 82304-2手册,采用82304-2要求,根据本地需求调整82304-2要求,并维持当前的FTSS框架。结果:框架之间的主要区别是基于应用程序使用的评估(FTSS)与基于证据和应用程序使用的评估(82304-2)。所有120个FTSS要求和74个质量方面相关的82304-2要求被转化为78个概念和97个子概念。总体而言,在两个框架中发现了48%(47/97)的子概念,39%(37.5/97)是针对82304-2的,13%(12.5/97)是针对FTSS的。所有82304-2特定的子概念以及所有82304-2的要求都与FTSS相关。FTSS决定整合(采用和调整)所有74 82304-2要求。Label2Enable 82304-2手册中总共包含了5个ftss特定需求,而另外4个严密性增强需求,1个范围扩展需求和1个上下文特定需求将被评估。结论:通过对FTSS框架和82304-2的综合比较分析,使FTSS决策能够整合82304-2的所有质量要求,并在未来采用Label2Enable 82304-2手册。许多新的和所有相关的82304-2概念,手册的严谨性,以及少数剩余的ftss特定要求,预计将表明82304-2有潜力在加泰罗尼亚和其他地方共同进行协调,强大的健康应用程序评估。FTSS鼓励其他当局进行类似的评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Integrating CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 in the Catalan Health App Assessment Framework: Comparative Case Study.

Integrating CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 in the Catalan Health App Assessment Framework: Comparative Case Study.

Integrating CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 in the Catalan Health App Assessment Framework: Comparative Case Study.

Integrating CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 in the Catalan Health App Assessment Framework: Comparative Case Study.

Background: Health apps are increasingly being used to promote health, manage diseases, and deliver health care services. Still, there is scarce objective information regarding their quality beyond the required Conformité Européenne mark for medical apps, leading to potential risks for users. To address these challenges, several authorities have developed health app assessment frameworks. In 2017, the TIC Salut Social Foundation (FTSS) in Catalonia developed its own health app assessment framework, which has been in use since that year. The publication of CEN ISO/TS 82304-2 (abbreviated as 82304-2)-a Technical Specification for assessing health apps-and the cocreation of the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook for certified assessment organizations provide a unique opportunity to harmonize app assessments across the European Union.

Objective: This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of the FTSS assessment framework with 82304-2 to explore the integration of 82304-2 in Catalonia. Our broader aim was to provide this methodology for health authorities elsewhere to consider integrating 82304-2 or other evaluation frameworks.

Methods: For the comparative analysis, a mixed methods approach was used, combining a qualitative case study with a quantitative analysis of the 2 frameworks. The qualitative evaluation covered rationale for assessment, framework characteristics, governance, workflows, quality aspects, and quality requirements. For the quantitative analysis, all FTSS and 82304-2 requirements were translated into concepts and subconcepts. A scoring system identified matches of the frameworks with these subconcepts, with scores ranging from 0 (no match) to 0.5 (partial match) and 1 (full match). Integration was evaluated considering several scenarios, including adopting the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook, adopting the 82304-2 requirements, adapting the 82304-2 requirements to local needs, and maintaining the current FTSS framework.

Results: The main difference between the frameworks was the app usage-based assessment (FTSS) versus evidence- and app usage-based assessment (82304-2). All 120 FTSS requirements and 74 quality aspect-related 82304-2 requirements were translated into 78 concepts and 97 subconcepts. Overall, 48% (47/97) of the subconcepts were found in both frameworks, 39% (37.5/97) were specific to 82304-2, and 13% (12.5/97) were specific to FTSS. All 82304-2-specific subconcepts and thus all 82304-2 requirements were found to be relevant to FTSS. FTSS decided to integrate (adopt and adapt) all 74 82304-2 requirements. In total, 5 FTSS-specific requirements were included in the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook, while another 4 rigor-enhancing requirements, 1 scope-expanding requirement, and 1 context-specific requirement would be assessed on top.

Conclusions: The comprehensive comparative analysis of the FTSS framework and 82304-2 enabled FTSS decision-making to integrate all 82304-2 quality requirements and adopt the Label2Enable 82304-2 handbook in the future. The many new and all relevant 82304-2 concepts, the rigor of the handbook, and the few remaining FTSS-specific requirements are expected to be indicative of 82304-2's potential to make harmonized, robust health app assessments common in Catalonia and elsewhere. FTSS encourages other authorities to perform a similar evaluation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
JMIR mHealth and uHealth Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
159
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR mHealth and uHealth (JMU, ISSN 2291-5222) is a spin-off journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175). JMIR mHealth and uHealth is indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and in June 2017 received a stunning inaugural Impact Factor of 4.636. The journal focusses on health and biomedical applications in mobile and tablet computing, pervasive and ubiquitous computing, wearable computing and domotics. JMIR mHealth and uHealth publishes since 2013 and was the first mhealth journal in Pubmed. It publishes even faster and has a broader scope with including papers which are more technical or more formative/developmental than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
×
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