Die angemessene Evidenz für Therapieentscheidungen: eine Diskussion des Methodenpluralismus in klinischen Studien

[Assessing the benefits of digital health solutions in the societal reimbursement context]

For a number of reasons, achieving reimbursability for digital health products has so far proven difficult. Demonstrating the benefits of the technology is the main hurdle in this context. The generally accepted evaluation processes, especially parallel group comparisons in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for (clinical) benefit assessment, are primarily intended to deal with questions of (added) medical benefit. In contrast to drugs or classical medical devices, users of digital health solutions often profit from gaining autonomy, increased awareness and mindfulness, better transparency in the provision of care, and improved comfort, although there are also digital solutions with an interventional character targeting clinical outcomes (e. g. for indications such as anorexia, depression). Commonly accepted methods for evaluating (clinical) benefits primarily rely on medical outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, but do not adequately consider additional benefits unique to digital health. The challenge is therefore to develop evaluation designs that respect the particularities of digital health without reducing the validity of the evaluations (especially with respect to safety). There is an increasing need for concepts that include both continuous feedback loops for adapting and improving an application while at the same time generate sufficient evidence for complex benefit assessments. This approach may help improve risk benefit ratio assessments of digital health when it comes to implementing digital innovations in healthcare.