Digital Therapeutics in Urology: An Innovative Approach to Patient Care and Management.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are a new class of intervention involving evidence-based software applications and have been used in neurology and psychiatry. To assess the potential of DTx in urology, we conducted a survey to assess the current prevalence of the digital infrastructure required for DTx, areas of support expected by patients, and requirements for uptake. Between November 2022 and January 2023, we conducted an anonymized survey at two German academic centers among patients with urologic conditions. We found that among patients aged <65 yr versus ≥65 yr, digital devices including smartphones (93.6% vs 77.3%; p < 0.001), computers (80.4% vs 70.1%; p < 0.001), tablets (51.7% vs 38.1%; p < 0.001), and smartwatches (24.7% vs 7.7%; p < 0.001) are already widely used, especially in the younger age group. Apps (95.6% vs 74.4%; p < 0.001) and health apps (57.6% vs 30.4%; p < 0.001) are already frequently used, but certified DTx apps are not (7.3% vs 5.4%; p = 0.25). Patients favor solutions that provide access to validated information (49.6%), give medical advice based on data or symptoms captured by the app (43.0%), or replace a physiotherapist (41.7%). Patients feel that optimization of therapy (78.4%), significant positive health outcomes (76.9%), and better patient autonomy (73.4%) are important requirements for DTx in urology. Regulatory and reimbursement changes mean that DTx might play an increasing role in urology. Patient summary: Patients can use digital therapeutics (DTx), which are mainly smartphone apps, to improve their health status or treat medical conditions. We assessed the current and future use of DTx in urology. Patients are already widely using smartphones and frequently use uncertified health apps, but do not use DTx. Patients would like to use DTx to optimize therapy that provides a significant health improvement.

Effects of tablet-based drawing and paper-based methods on medical students' learning of gross anatomy.

The way medical students learn anatomy is constantly evolving. Nowadays, technologies such as tablets support established learning methods like drawing. In this study, the effect of drawing on a tablet on medical students' anatomy learning was investigated compared to drawing or summarizing on paper. The quality of drawings or summaries was assessed as a measure of the quality of strategy implementation. Learning outcome was measured with an anatomy test, both immediately afterward and after 4-6 weeks to assess its sustainability. There were no significant group differences in learning outcome at both measurement points. For all groups, there was a significant medium strength correlation between the quality of the drawings or summaries and the learning outcome (p < 0.05). Further analysis revealed that the quality of strategy implementation moderated outcomes in the delayed test: When poorly implemented, drawing on a tablet (M = 48.81) was associated with lower learning outcome than drawing on paper (M = 58.95); The latter (M = 58.89) was related to higher learning outcome than writing summaries (M = 45.59). In case of high-quality strategy implementation, drawing on a tablet (M = 60.98) outperformed drawing on paper (M = 52.67), which in turn was outperformed by writing summaries (M = 62.62). To conclude, drawing on a tablet serves as a viable alternative to paper-based methods for learning anatomy if students can make adequate use of this strategy. Future research needs to identify how to support student drawing, for instance, by offering scaffolds with adaptive feedback to enhance learning.

Mapping Telemedicine in German Private Practice Urological Care: Implications for Transitioning beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the use and concern of telemedicine among German urologists, and thus, there are no established guidelines for telemedical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urological indications. METHODS: An anonymized survey was conducted among German private practice urologists during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 257 urologists were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (14.0%) of urologists had used telemedicine as part of their consultation, and 221 (86.0%) had not used telemedicine. There was no difference between telemedicine adoption rates between rural and urban settings. Telemedicine users were significantly more satisfied with the information they had received regarding telemedicine issues. Users saw the greatest barrier to telemedicine that patients do not take up the offer of telemedicine. Nonusers were most concerned with unclear indications for telemedicine followed by lesser reimbursements during telemedicine than in-person visitations. Users were significantly more likely to use telemedicine beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists, who wanted to use the service in the future, wanted an active support by the German society of urology and guidelines for telemedicine. Last, users and nonusers preferred telemedicine for non-acute chronic diseases and follow-up visitations. CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine remains a rarely used service among German private practice urologists. Ultimately, to overcome the current challenges, urologists require an active support for the service through the German Society of Urology and telemedical guidelines.