ABSTRACT
Objective: The Digital Healthcare Act introduced the prescription of digital health applications under specific circumstances in 2019 in Germany. They are funded through the social security system. In market access of prescribed digital health applications, Germany is pioneering the market. There remains a gap in understanding the views of medical professionals on the incentives of using these applications. As prescription of digital health applications starts emerging in other European countries, we sought to generate an overview of incentives and barriers that affect the caregivers in their decision of promoting and prescribing them in Germany. Methods: A Rapid Review of the Web of Science database for the years 2017-2023 was performed using sensitive search strings. Two reviewers conducted a three-phase selection via title, abstract and full-text independently from each other. The quality of studies was assessed systematically by both reviewers. Both quantitative and qualitative studies with primary data were included, and study quality was assessed using a standardised form. Results: Out of 1643 initial results, 12 studies with information from 9302 physicians and psychotherapists were identified. Eight quantitative and four qualitative studies were included in the analysis. Key findings suggest that while between 40% and 60% of caregivers see relevant incentives mainly based on patients' benefits, 20-40% see relevant barriers. For the physicians' daily work, there were slightly more barriers than incentives identified in the quantitative synthesis. The qualitative studies revealed no relevant incentives that were not attributed to patients. Conclusion: While digital health solutions offer promising avenues for enhancing patient care, their acceptance among healthcare professionals hinges on addressing prevailing concerns. Continuous research and dialogues with the medical community are pivotal to harness the full potential of digital health applications in healthcare.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: More than 50% of the type-2 Diabetes (T2DM) mortality is due to cardiovascular disease. Current treatment guidelines recommend an increasingly differentiated and comprehensive management of cardiovascular risk factors. This study aims to measure the extent to which T2DM care is currently adjusted for cardiovascular risks in clinical practice. METHODS: This observational study included 123 T2DM patients of nine outpatient diabetology specialist clinics in Southern Germany. Guideline adherence was measured based on selected aspects of the joint guideline of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). The proportion of patients with treatment target adherence, monitoring adherence, and therapy adherence for the areas of blood pressure and lipid metabolism management was determined, and the correlation between adherence and treatment outcome was assessed by comparing treatment target achievement rates between the group that received guideline-adherent care and the group with no guideline-adherent care. RESULTS: The combined adherence rates were 39% for blood pressure management and 10% for lipid management. 70% of the participants with adherent blood pressure management and 56% with non-adherent blood pressure management achieved the blood pressure target (p=0.165). 50% of the patients with guideline-adherent lipid management and 17% with not guideline-adherent lipid management achieved the LDL cholesterol target (p=0.032). DISCUSSION: Less than half of the study population received care that was adequately adjusted for cardiovascular risks. Participants that received risk-adjusted care achieved their treatment target for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol more often. In order to validate methods and results, the study should be repeated with routine care data from a larger study population. CONCLUSION: Guideline-adherent care pays off: cardiovascular risk-adjusted care, especially following the more differentiated ESC/EASC guideline 2019, increases the chance for T2DM patients to avoid or delay cardiovascular complications.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Germany , Guideline Adherence , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Humans , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
AIMS: Adherence to treatment guidelines and treatment success are low in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aims to capture the physician perspective on T2DM guideline adherence and identify levers for increasing adherence. METHODS: A survey among German physicians captured the perceived value of 4 areas in the national treatment guideline (NVL), 13 possible barriers, and 9 possible enablers for guideline adherence. Perceived value was assessed by ranking 4 NVL areas by implementation difficulty and impact on treatment success. Barriers and enablers were assessed by rating their influence on guideline deviation and adherence. The consistency of results across subgroups was assessed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Responses from 46 physicians showed a strong consensus about the value of each NVL area. Physicians perceived patient inability and demotivation to be the strongest adherence barriers (93%, 78%). All queried enablers were approved by ≥ 50% of participants. Physicians considered cross-provider collaboration and electronic therapy decision support as strongest enablers (85%, 80%). Consistency was high between subgroups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that physicians consider patient-related factors to be stronger barriers for guideline adherence than physician-related factors. Finding opportunities to increase physician buy-in is important for better guideline adherence. In this study, physicians voiced appreciation for adherence enablers based on digital solutions to support the care process and to reduce the complexity of therapy decisions.
