Skip to main content
Log in

Partizipative Entwicklung von Digital-Public-Health-Anwendungen: Spannungsfeld zwischen Nutzer*innenperspektive und Evidenzbasierung

Participatory development of digital public health: tension between user perspectives and evidence

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Digital Public Health verspricht neben einer umfänglicheren medizinischen Versorgung auch eine individuelle Gesundheitsförderung und Unterstützung für positive Veränderungen im Lebensstil. Mobilen digitalen Gesundheitsgeräten und -diensten, auch Mobile Health (M-Health) genannt, kommt dabei eine Schlüsselrolle zu. Sie umfassen gesundheitsspezifische Hardware- und Softwareapplikationen wie Smartphone-Apps und Wearables zur Aufzeichnung, Überwachung und Auswertung spezifischer Gesundheitsparameter. Obwohl es wissenschaftliche Nachweise für die Effektivität einzelner Anwendungen gibt, bleibt die praktische Nutzung meist von verhältnismäßig kurzer Dauer. Um eine höhere Akzeptanz- und Nutzungsrate zu erreichen, wird Evidenz benötigt, die stärker an der Praxis orientiert ist.

Der vorliegende Beitrag erläutert, wie mittels partizipatorischer Entwicklungsansätze und unter Berücksichtigung individueller Bedürfnisse und Präferenzen der Nutzer*innen die Qualität und Wirksamkeit von M‑Health-Angeboten verbessert werden können. Die soziodemografischen Merkmale der Zielgruppe sowie individuelle, soziale, sprachliche und kulturelle Barrieren sollten Beachtung finden ebenso Wünsche der Nutzer*innen z. B. nach Personalisierbarkeit, Übermittlung von Informationen in Echtzeit und Transparenz in Hinblick auf Datenschutz. Beim Co-Design-Ansatz werden die Nutzer*innen daher direkt in die Produktkonzeption einbezogen. Die Studienlage hierzu ist aber noch begrenzt und es fehlt an methodischer Systematik.

Um die Nutzung von M‑Health-Angeboten zukünftig zu erhöhen, sollten Partizipationsprozesse systematisiert werden. Zudem sollten Konzepte für Klassifizierung und Zertifizierung sowie Verfahren zur Bekanntmachung von wirksamen Anwendungen entwickelt werden.

Abstract

Digital public health promises not only more comprehensive medical care, but also individual health promotion and support for positive lifestyle changes. Mobile digital health devices and services, also called mobile health (mHealth), play a key role in this. They include health-specific hardware and software applications such as smartphone apps and wearable technology for recording, monitoring, and evaluating specific health parameters. Although there is scientific evidence for the effectiveness of individual applications, most often applications are used for a relatively short amount of time. In order to achieve a higher acceptance and utilization rate, evidence is needed that is more practice oriented.

This paper explains how participatory development approaches take into account the individual needs and preferences of users and can improve the quality and effectiveness of mHealth services. The sociodemographic characteristics of the target group as well as individual, social, linguistic, and cultural barriers should be considered. The wishes of users, for example personalization, transmission of real-time information, and transparency in terms of privacy should also be considered. In the co-design approach, users are therefore included directly in the product concept. However, the study situation is still limited and there are no methodical approaches.

In order to increase the use of mHealth services in the future, participation processes should be systematized. In addition, a framework for classification and certification as well as procedures for promoting effective applications should be developed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Literatur

  1. Shaw T, Mcgregor D, Brunner M, Keep M, Janssen A, Barnet S (2017) What is ehealth (6)? development of a conceptual model for ehealth: qualitative study with key informants. J Med Internet Res 19:e324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ametsreiter H (2019) Smartphone-Markt: Konjunktur und Trends. Bitkom, Berlin (Bitkom-Präsidium (ed))

    Google Scholar 

  3. Iribarren SJ, Cato K, Falzon L, Stone PW (2017) What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions. PLoS ONE 12:e170581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. IQVIA (Institute for Human Data Science) (2017) The growing value of digital health. https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/the-growing-value-of-digital-health

  5. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ (2007) Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res 42:1758–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baretta D, Sartori F, Greco A, D’addario M, Melen R, Steca P (2019) Improving physical activity mhealth interventions: development of a computational model of self-efficacy theory to define adaptive goals for exercise promotion. Adv Human Comput Interact 2019:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Song T, Qian S, Yu P (2019) Mobile health interventions for self-control of unhealthy alcohol use: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 7:e10899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rivera J, Mcpherson A, Hamilton J et al (2016) Mobile Apps for weight management: a scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 4:e87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Whittaker R, Mcrobbie H, Bullen C, Rodgers A, Gu Y (2016) Mobile phone-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ventola LC (2014) Mobile devices and Apps for health care professionals: uses and benefits. Pharm Ther 39:356–364

    Google Scholar 

  11. Villinger K, Wahl DR, Boeing H, Schupp HT, Renner B (2019) The effectiveness of app-based mobile interventions on nutrition behaviours and nutrition-related health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12903

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Schoeppe S, Alley S, Van Lippevelde W et al (2016) Efficacy of interventions that use apps to improve diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13:127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Woldaregay AZ, Issom DZ, Henriksen A et al (2018) Motivational factors for user engagement with mhealth Apps. Stud Health Technol Inform 249:151–157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson K, Burford O, Emmerton L (2016) Mobile Health Apps to Facilitate Self-Care: A Qualitative Study of User Experiences. PLoS ONE 11(5):e0156164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Leung L, Chen C (2019) E‑health/m-health adoption and lifestyle improvements: exploring the roles of technology readiness, the expectation-confirmation model, and health-related information activities. Telecomm Policy 43:563–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eyles H, Jull A, Dobson R et al (2016) Co-design of mhealth delivered interventions: a systematic review to assess key methods and processes. Curr Nutr Rep 5:160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Peiris D, Miranda JJ, Mohr DC (2018) Going beyond killer apps: building a better mHealth evidence base. BMJ Glob Health 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000676

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Pham Q, Wiljer D, Cafazzo JA (2016) Beyond the randomized controlled trial: a review of alternatives in mhealth clinical trial methods. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 4:e107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Baker TB, Piper ME, Stein JH et al (2016) Effects of nicotine patch vs varenicline vs combination nicotine replacement therapy on smoking cessation at 26 weeks: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 315:371–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R, Lancaster T (2013) Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub3:CD002850

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Free C, Phillips G, Galli L et al (2013) The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. PLoS Med 10:e1001362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaltheuner M, Drossel D, Heinemann L (2016) Diadigital support for patients and diabetologists when using Apps. Diabetologe 12:538–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bittner J, Thranberend T (2019) AppQ: ein Gütekriterien-Kernset für mehr Qualitätstransparenz bei Gesundheits-Apps. https://blog.der-digitale-patient.de/appq-guetekriterien-kernset-gesundheits-apps/. Zugegriffen: 5. Sept. 2019 (Bertelsman Stiftung)

  24. Druce KL, Dixon WG, Mcbeth J (2019) Maximizing engagement in mobile health studies: lessons learned and future directions. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 45:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Crane D, Garnett C, Brown J, West R, Michie S (2015) Behavior change techniques in popular alcohol reduction apps: content analysis. J Med Internet Res 17:e118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carroll JK, Moorhead A, Bond R, Leblanc WG, Petrella RJ, Fiscella K (2017) Who uses mobile phone health Apps and does use matter? A secondary data analytics approach. J Med Internet Res 19:e125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Elavsky S, Smahel D, Machackova H (2017) Who are mobile app users from healthy lifestyle websites? Analysis of patterns of app use and user characteristics. Transl Behav Med 7:891–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. König LM, Sproesser G, Schupp HT, Renner B (2018) Describing the process of adopting nutrition and fitness Apps: behavior stage model approach. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 6(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8261

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Viswanath K, Mccloud R, Minsky S et al (2013) Internet use, browsing, and the urban poor: implications for cancer control. JNCI Monogr 2013:199–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhao Y, Ni Q, Zhou R (2018) What factors influence the mobile health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of age. Int J Inf Manage 43:342–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoque R, Sorwar G (2017) Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mhealth by the elderly: an extension of the UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform 101:75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Urban M (2017) “This really takes it out of you!” The senses and emotions in digital health practices of the elderly. Digit Health 3:2055207617701778

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Perski O, Blandford A, West R, Michie S (2016) Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: a systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Behav Med Pract Policy Res 7:254–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee E, Han S, Jo SH (2017) Consumer choice of on-demand mHealth app services: context and contents values using structural equation modeling. Int J Med Inform 97:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q 25(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lazar A, Koehler C, Tanenbaum J, Nguyen DH (2015) Why we use and abandon smart devices. Proceedings of the 2015 Acm International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp 2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804288:635–646

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Meyer J, Wasmann M, Heuten W, El Ali A, Boll SCJ (2017) Identification and classification of usage patterns in long-term activity tracking. Proceedings of the 2017 Acm Sigchi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Chi’17). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025690:667–678

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson K, Burford O, Emmerton L (2016) Mobile health Apps to facilitate self-care: a qualitative study of user experiences. PLoS ONE 11:e156164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lipschitz J, Miller CJ, Hogan TP et al (2019) Adoption of mobile Apps for depression and anxiety: cross-sectional survey study on patient interest and barriers to engagement. JMIR Ment Health 6:e11334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ et al (2016) Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAis) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Ann Behav Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9830-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Burns MN, Begale M, Duffecy J et al (2011) Harnessing context sensing to develop a mobile intervention for depression. J Med Internet Res 13:e55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dennison L, Morrison L, Conway G, Yardley L (2013) Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 15:e86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schlosser D, Campellone T, Kim D et al (2016) Feasibility of PRIME: a cognitive neuroscience-informed mobile app intervention to enhance motivated behavior and improve quality of life in recent onset schizophrenia. JMIR Res Protoc 5:e77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cho H, Powell D, Pichon A et al (2018) A mobile health intervention for HIV prevention among racially and ethnically diverse young men: usability evaluation. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 6:e11450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. DeSmet A, Thompson D, Baranowski T, Palmeira A, Verloigne M, De Bourdeaudhuij I (2016) Is participatory design associated with the effectiveness of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion? A meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 18(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4444

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Krishnaswami J, Martinson M, Wakimoto P, Anglemeyer A (2012) Community-engaged interventions on diet, activity, and weight outcomes in U.S. Schools. Am J Prev Med 43:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tina Jahnel MA.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

T. Jahnel und B. Schüz geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jahnel, T., Schüz, B. Partizipative Entwicklung von Digital-Public-Health-Anwendungen: Spannungsfeld zwischen Nutzer*innenperspektive und Evidenzbasierung. Bundesgesundheitsbl 63, 153–159 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-019-03082-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-019-03082-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation