1 / 21

Target population/question

EULAR Points to consider for the development, evaluation and implementation of mobile health applications aiding self-management in people living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Target population/question.

brownr
Download Presentation

Target population/question

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. EULAR Points to consider for the development, evaluation and implementation of mobile health applications aiding self-management in people living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

  2. Targetpopulation/question • Apps users, including patients, parents/carers, health professionals, rheumatologists, patient organizations, scientific societies, app developers and regulatory agencies. • To assist in evaluating the quality of existing apps, while guiding the development, evaluation and implementation of future apps aiding self-management among people living with RMDs.

  3. Methods I • Development according to the 2014 EULAR standardized operating procedures1 • Task Force • 19 members from 10 countries across Europe, including 15 rheumatologists, 2 patient research partners, 2 healthcare professionals. • Systematic Literature Review (SLR) • Detailed information on existing mHealthapps to aid self-management among people living with RMDs, focusing on content and development methods. • Patient focus group and patient survey • Gain insights into the needs, views, experiences and preferences in mHealth apps to aid self-management among people living with RMDs. 1van der Heijde D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:8–13.

  4. Methods II • One-day Task Force meeting • Results of SLR, patient focus group and survey presented to Task Force • Group discussion led to formulation of 3 overarching principles and 10 points to consider • Voting on agreement for every proposed statement. • Level of evidence and strength of recommendation judged according to Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine standards2 • Level of agreement allocated by online voting to each point to consider by Task Force members (anonymously) 2http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

  5. Methods III 3 abstract from manual search 1 abstract from PsychInfo 25 abstract from Web of Science 1 abstract from Cochrane 435 abstracts formPubmed 97 abstracts from Embase Identification 87 duplicates excluded. 562 abstracts identified 418 excluded: -173 not in Rheumatology and not generic. -95 not a mHealth intervention. -92 mHealth intervention but not an App. -13 mHealth App for mHealth intervention but not for self-management purposes. -74 reviews. 475 abstracts screened Screening 56 selected for full-text screening 24excluded: - 13 mHealthintervention but not an App. -10 mHealth intervention with connected device but not connected to an App. -1 full-text non accessible. Eligibility 32 full-text articles included

  6. Overarchingprinicples • Apps* for self-management support the health, wellbeing and empowerment of people living with RMDs. • Apps* require an overarching conceptual framework, which defines the target population and purpose of the app. • User privacy and safety are fundamental considerations for all apps* aimed at people living with RMDs. *An appis a small programme thatcanbedownloaded and installed on a mobile device. For the purpose of thesePtC, the definitiontakes a focus on self-management of RMDs.

  7. Points to consider 1 • The information content in self-management apps should be up-to-date, scientifically justifiable, user-acceptable and evidence-based where applicable. • Any medical content provided by self-management apps should be validated by appropriate experts • A previous review of existing rheumatology apps highlighted that the source of medical information was lacking in 40% of the screened apps. • Sources should be cited whenever possible. • LoE: 5

  8. Points to consider 2 • Apps should be relevant and tailored to the individual needs of people with RMDs. • Largely based on expert opinion and the results of the patients’ survey. • Patient priorities, for example, pain, function and fatigue, should be taken into account when designing apps. • LoE: 5

  9. Points to consider 3 • The design, development and validation of self-management apps should involve people with RMDs and relevant health care providers. • Health professionals and patients were rarely involved in every stage of app development (SLR). • Since patients are the target users, app development should be patient-centered, and driven directly by the needs and priorities of people living with RMDs. • As medical content is provided and medical data are usually collected in such apps, health care providers, in particular rheumatologists, should be involved in the development phase. • LoE: 5

  10. Points to consider4 • There should be transparency on an app’s developer, funding source, content validation process, version updates and data ownership. • Important information such as the developer, funding source(s), advertisement and promotion, conflict of interest, or date of last update were missing from the description of a significant number of apps. • Such information should be made publicly available for any app. • LoE: 5

  11. Points to consider5 • Data collection as part of an app must adhere to all applicable regulatory frameworks, particularly data protection. • Mostly based on expert opinion after discussion of existing regulatory documents. • European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 1996 US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)and national regulatory documents (UK, Spain). • Applicable regulations and ethical principles should be followed if medical-related data are collected as part of apps, to ensure that appropriate data protection regulations are adhered to, while promoting patient safety. • LoE: 5

  12. Points to consider6 • Apps must not result in physical or emotional harm to people with RMDs. • The content and functionalities of apps should consider the wellbeing of people living with RMDs as a priority. • Content that could potentially cause emotional distress or suicidal ideation must be avoided. • LoE: 5

  13. Points to consider7 • Apps could facilitate patient-health care provider communication and contribute to electronic health records or research. • The lack of feedback on data collected by apps seems to affect app use and its cessation in other diseases. • There is a need for health professionals and regulators to acknowledge the use and capacity of apps to enhance patient-health care provider communication • LoE: 5

  14. Points to consider8 • App design should consider accessibility of people with RMDs across ages and abilities. • The accessibility of apps and their ease of use is an important point towards their implementation and sustainability. • App design should follow the principle of universal design, and should be usable regardless of previous experience of mobile device use • LoE: 5

  15. Points to consider9 • If a social network is an important component of an app, structures should be in place to ensure appropriate content moderation. • Like other forms of social media, if apps allow public communication between users, they should include a moderation component (for example, someone to moderate live communication/interaction on communication platforms, thus avoiding and/or removing inappropriate or harmful content) • The app developer should be responsible for ensuring such structures exist and are enforced • LoE: 5

  16. Points to consider10 • The rheumatology community should consider the cost-benefit balance of apps before endorsement and/or promotion. • The majority of people living with RMDs did not wish to pay for the apps in the patient survey. • Cost should be limited as much as possible • LoE: 5

  17. SummaryTable Oxford Level of EvidenceOverarchingprinciples *An app is a small programme that can be downloaded and installed on a mobile device..

  18. SummaryTable Oxford Level of EvidencePoints to consider *An app is a small programme that can be downloaded and installed on a mobile device.

  19. Summaryof pointstoconsider in bulletpoint format

  20. Summaryof Points to considerinlay format • Ongoing with PARE

  21. Acknowledgements • Convenors: Aurélie Najm, Francis Berenbaum • Methodologists: Elena Nikiphorou, Laure Gossec • Fellow: Aurélie Najm • Members of the Task Force: M. Kostine, C. Richez, J.D. Pauling, A. Finckh, V. Ritschl, Y. Prior, P. Balazova, S.R. Stones, Z. Szekanecz, A. Iagnocco, S. Ramiro, F. Sivera, M. Dougados, L. Carmona, G. Burmeister. • We thank David Benoist and Catherine Weill(BU Santé Paris Descartes, Université de Paris, France) for their contribution to the systematic literature search.

More Related