To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The aim of this study is to determine whether the approach used in Australia to regulate mobile medical applications (MMA) is consistent with international standards and is suitable to address the unique challenges of these technologies.
The policies of members of the International Medical Device Regulator's Forum (IMDRF) were analyzed, to determine whether these regulatory bodies address IMDRF recommendations for the clinical evaluation of software as a medical device (SaMD). Case-studies of varying types of regulated MMAs in Australia and the United States were also reviewed to determine how well the guidance in the IMDRF's SaMD: Clinical Evaluation (2017) document was operationalized.
All included jurisdictions evaluated the effectiveness of MMAs and addressed the majority of the key sub-categories recommended in the IMDRF guidance document. However, safety principles concerning information security (cybersecurity) and potential dangers of misinformation (risk-classification) were generally not addressed in either the case-studies or in the policy documents of international regulatory bodies. Australia's approach was consistent with MMA regulation conducted internationally. None of the approaches used by global regulatory bodies adequately addressed the risk of misinformation from apps and the potential for adverse clinical consequences.
The risks posed by MMAs are mainly through the information they provide and how this is used in clinical decision-making. Policy in Australia and elsewhere should be adjusted to follow the IMDRF risk-classification criteria to address potential harms from misinformation. Australian regulatory information should also be updated so the harm posed by cybersecurity and connectivity can be comprehensively evaluated.
To identify and appraise existing evaluation frameworks for mobile medical applications (MMA) and determine their suitability for use in health technology assessment (HTA) of these technologies.
Systematic searches were conducted of seven bibliographic databases to identify literature published between 2008 and 2016 on MMA evaluation frameworks. Frameworks were eligible if they were used to evaluate at least one of the HTA domains of effectiveness, safety, and/or cost and cost-effectiveness of an MMA. After inclusion, the frameworks were reviewed to determine the number and extent to which other elements of an HTA were addressed by the framework.
A total of forty-five frameworks were identified that assessed MMAs. All frameworks assessed whether the app was effective. Of the thirty-four frameworks that examined safety, only seven overtly evaluated potential harms from the MMA (e.g., the impact of inaccurate information). Only one framework explicitly considered a comparator. Technology specific domains were sporadically addressed.
None of the evaluation frameworks could be used, unaltered, to guide the HTA of MMAs. To use these frameworks in HTA they would need to identify relevant comparators, improve assessments of harms and consider the ongoing effect of software updates on the safety and effectiveness of MMAs. Attention should also be paid to ethical issues, such as data privacy, and technology specific characteristics. Implications: Existing MMA evaluation frameworks are not suitable for use in HTA. Further research is needed before an MMA evaluation framework can be developed that will adequately inform policy makers.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.