Health app policy: international comparison of nine countries' approaches
- PMID: 35304561
- PMCID: PMC8933556
- DOI: 10.1038/s41746-022-00573-1
Health app policy: international comparison of nine countries' approaches
Abstract
An abundant and growing supply of digital health applications (apps) exists in the commercial tech-sector, which can be bewildering for clinicians, patients, and payers. A growing challenge for the health care system is therefore to facilitate the identification of safe and effective apps for health care practitioners and patients to generate the most health benefit as well as guide payer coverage decisions. Nearly all developed countries are attempting to define policy frameworks to improve decision-making, patient care, and health outcomes in this context. This study compares the national policy approaches currently in development/use for health apps in nine countries. We used secondary data, combined with a detailed review of policy and regulatory documents, and interviews with key individuals and experts in the field of digital health policy to collect data about implemented and planned policies and initiatives. We found that most approaches aim for centralized pipelines for health app approvals, although some countries are adding decentralized elements. While the countries studied are taking diverse paths, there is nevertheless broad, international convergence in terms of requirements in the areas of transparency, health content, interoperability, and privacy and security. The sheer number of apps on the market in most countries represents a challenge for clinicians and patients. Our analyses of the relevant policies identified challenges in areas such as reimbursement, safety, and privacy and suggest that more regulatory work is needed in the areas of operationalization, implementation and international transferability of approvals. Cross-national efforts are needed around regulation and for countries to realize the benefits of these technologies.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
During the period when this manuscript was written A.D.S was a part-time employee of the Health Innovation Hub (HIH) of the German Federal Ministry of Health. Her contributions to this manuscript were informed by her work with the HIH, but her involvement in this project was uncompensated. F.G. is employed by the National Insitute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Imperial College London. His contributions to this manuscript were informed by his work at NICE, but his involvement in this project was uncompensated. D.W.B. reports grants and personal fees from EarlySense, personal fees from CDI Negev, equity from ValeraHealth, equity from Clew, equity from MDClone, personal fees and equity from AESOP, personal fees and equity from Feelbetter, and grants from IBM Watson Health, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
-
A health app developer's guide to law and policy: a multi-sector policy analysis.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):141. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0535-0. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017. PMID: 28969704 Free PMC article.
-
Managing the health care market in developing countries: prospects and problems.Health Policy Plan. 1994 Sep;9(3):237-51. doi: 10.1093/heapol/9.3.237. Health Policy Plan. 1994. PMID: 10137740 Review.
-
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003. PMID: 14698953 Review.
Cited by
-
Challenges and Alternatives to Evaluation Methods and Regulation Approaches for Medical Apps as Mobile Medical Devices: International and Multidisciplinary Focus Group Discussion.J Med Internet Res. 2024 Sep 30;26:e54814. doi: 10.2196/54814. J Med Internet Res. 2024. PMID: 39348678 Free PMC article.
-
What Makes a Quality Health App-Developing a Global Research-Based Health App Quality Assessment Framework for CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2: Delphi Study.JMIR Form Res. 2023 Jan 23;7:e43905. doi: 10.2196/43905. JMIR Form Res. 2023. PMID: 36538379 Free PMC article.
-
Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Health App Assessments Among Health Care Stakeholders: Discrete Choice Experiment.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2025 May 26;13:e57474. doi: 10.2196/57474. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2025. PMID: 40418790 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating Digital Health Solutions in Diabetes and the Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Targeted Literature Review.JMIR Diabetes. 2025 Jun 4;10:e52909. doi: 10.2196/52909. JMIR Diabetes. 2025. PMID: 40466203 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Multinational landscape of health app policy: toward regulatory consensus on digital health.NPJ Digit Med. 2022 May 11;5(1):61. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00604-x. NPJ Digit Med. 2022. PMID: 35545663 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Schwartz B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. New York: Harper Collins; 2004.
-
- Gordon, W., Chopra, A., & Landman, A. Patient-led data sharing: a new paradigm for electronic health data. N. Engl. J. Med. Catalyst.https://catalyst.nejm.org/patient-led-health-data-paradigm/ (2018).
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources