Background The digitization of health care led to a steady increase in the adoption and use of mobile health (mHealth) apps. Germany is the first country in the world to cover the costs of mHealth apps through statutory health insurance. Although the benefits of mHealth apps are discussed in detail, aspects of problems and barriers are rarely studied. Objective This scoping review aimed to map and categorize the evidence on problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. Additional searches were conducted on JMIR Publications and on websites of relevant international organizations. The inclusion criteria were publications dealing with apps similar to those approved in the German health care system, publications addressing problems and barriers related to the use of mHealth apps, and articles published between January 1, 2015, and June 8, 2021. Study selection was performed by 2 reviewers. The manuscript was drafted according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. The analysis of the included publications and categorization of problems and hurdles were performed using MAXQDA (VERBI Software GmbH). Results The database search identified 1479 publications. Of the 1479 publications, 21 (1.42%) met the inclusion criteria. A further 8 publications were included from citation searching and searching in JMIR Publications. The identified publications were analyzed for problems and barriers. Problems and barriers were classified into 10 categories (“validity,” “usability,” “technology,” “use and adherence,” “data privacy and security,” “patient-physician relationship,” “knowledge and skills,” “individuality,” “implementation,” and “costs”). The most frequently mentioned categories were use and adherence (eg, incorporating the app into daily life or dropouts from use; n=22) and usability (eg, ease of use and design; n=19). Conclusions The search identified various problems and barriers in the context of mHealth apps. Although problems at the app level (such as usability) are studied frequently, problems at the system level are addressed rather vaguely. To ensure optimal use of and care with mHealth apps, it is essential to consider all types of problems and barriers. Therefore, researchers and policy makers should have a special focus on this issue to identify the needs for quality assurance. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/32702

The aim of the present work was to identify published methodological guidance for rapid reviews (RRs) and to analyze the recommendations with regard to timesaving measures. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE in November 2020. In addition, a search based on Google Scholar and websites of

A reduction in sedentary behavior (SB) can contribute to the prevention of chronic diseases. This is the first umbrella review that summarizes the effectiveness and monetary costs of different types of interventions to reduce SB across all age groups and populations in different settings. We comprehensively searched seven databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and conducted an umbrella review of the effects of interventions to reduce SB. Additionally, we performed a meta-analysis of primary studies included in the umbrella review. Furthermore, we analyzed health economic aspects of interventions to reduce SB. We included 40 systematic reviews in our umbrella review, with 136 primary studies suitable for further meta-analyses.We found that interventions targeting the physical environment reduce SB most effectively in the majority of populations and settings. Workplace interventions reduced SB by À89.83 min/day (95% CI À124.58 to À55.09; p ≤ 0.0001). Twentytwo of 169 primary studies (13.0%) contained health economic information. The intervention costs per participant ranged from €0 to €3587. Our findings demonstrate that physical environment interventions most effectively reduce SB in a majority of populations and settings. Health economic information was reported in few studies and was mostly restricted to acquisition costs.

IntroductionIn May 2019, the WHO classified internet gaming disorder (IGD) as a mental disorder in the upcoming International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. However, individuals affected by IGD or internet use disorders (IUDs) are often not provided with adequate therapy due to a lack of motivation or absence of adequate local treatment options. To close the gap between individuals with IUDs and the care system, we conduct an online-based motivational intervention to reduce problematic internet use and promote treatment motivation in internet gaming disorder and internet use disorder (OMPRIS).Methods and analysisWithin the randomised controlled trial, a total of n=162 participants will be allocated by sequential balancing randomisation to the OMPRIS intervention or a waitlist control group. The study includes an extensive diagnostic, followed by a 4-week psychological intervention based on motivational interviewing, (internet-related) addiction therapy, behavioural therapy techniques and additional social counselling. The primary outcome is the reduction of problematic internet use measured by the Assessment of Internet and Computer Game Addiction Scale. Secondary outcomes include time spent on the internet, motivation for change (Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale for Internet Use Disorder), comorbid mental symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener-7), quality of life (EuroQoL Standardised Measure of Health-related Quality of Life–5 Dimensions, General Life Satisfaction-1), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale), personality traits (Big Five Inventory-10), therapeutic alliance (Helping Alliance Questionnaire) and health economic costs. The diagnosis of (comorbid) mental disorders is carried out with standardised clinical interviews. The measurement will be assessed before (T0), at midpoint (T1) and after the OMPRIS intervention (T2), representing the primary endpoint. Two follow-up assessments will be conducted after 6 weeks (T3) and 6 months (T4) after the intervention. The outcomes will be analysed primarily via analysis of covariance. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationParticipants will provide written informed consent. The trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum (approval number 19-6779). Findings will be disseminated through presentations, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration numberDRKS00019925.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund und Zielsetzung Kostenberechnungen sind ein wesentlicher Bestandteil gesundheitsökonomischer Evaluationen, weisen jedoch für den deutschen Versorgungskontext teilweise große Unterschiede im methodischen Vorgehen auf. Zielsetzung der vorliegenden Artikelserie ist es, einen konsentierten Vorschlag zu den Vorgehensweisen der Kostenberechnungen in verschiedenen Versorgungssektoren zu präsentieren und mit diesem einführenden Artikel allgemeine, Sektoren-unspezifische Aspekte in der Durchführung von Kostenberechnungen zu beschreiben. Methodik In der Arbeitsgruppe „Standardkosten“ des Ausschusses „Ökonomische Evaluation und Entscheidungsfindung“ haben sich Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler von Universitäten und Entscheidungsträgern im Gesundheitswesen zusammengeschlossen, um die bestehenden Probleme bei Kostenberechnungen im Rahmen gesundheitsökonomischer Forschungen zu diskutieren und ein einheitliches Vorgehen zu erarbeiten. Zur Entwicklung der Empfehlungen fanden drei Arbeitstreffen sowie weitere Telefonkonferenzen statt. Die vorläufigen Ergebnisse wurden auf der 11. Jahrestagung der dggö der Fachöffentlichkeit vorgestellt. Ergebnisse Im vorliegenden ersten Artikel einer zunächst fünf Artikel umfassenden Serie werden grundsätzliche Themen der Perspektivwahl, des Preis-Mengengerüstes, der Studienarten, der Kostenkomponenten, der Datenquellen, der Anpassung von Kostendaten über die Zeit oder über Ländergrenzen hinweg sowie der Umgang mit Unsicherheit behandelt und Empfehlungen zu diesen Themen gegeben. Des Weiteren wird die Gliederung von später folgenden vier Artikeln zu den Berechnungsmethoden in einzelnen Versorgungssektoren beschrieben.