Evidence mapPaperPMID 40957007Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Understanding Economic Decision-Making in Digital Therapeutics Development: Qualitative Approach.

Yoann Sapanel, L Martin Cloutier, Alec Morton, Sapphire Lin, Gyula Seres, Dean Ho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yoann SapanelThe Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-7850
L Martin CloutierDepartment of Analytics, Operations, and Information Technologies, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5410-791X
Alec MortonSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3803-8517
Sapphire LinThe Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9430-1239
Gyula SeresThe Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4254-0198
Dean HoThe Institute for Digital Medicine (WisDM), Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-296X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital therapeutics (DTx) represent a transformative shift in health care delivery, offering software-driven, evidence-based therapeutic interventions. Despite their potential, adoption remains low across health care systems, partly due to insufficient economic evidence. Significant knowledge gaps persist regarding stakeholders' approaches to economic decisions in DTx development, with prior studies also indicating limited consideration of economic factors in early DTx development stages, particularly from researchers.

objectiveThis study investigates how researchers approach decision-making regarding factors that influence the economic impact of DTx during technological development and clinical validation phases, examining the underlying mechanisms and contextual conditions that shape these processes.

methodsUsing a critical realism philosophical stance, 17 semistructured interviews were conducted with researchers involved in DTx development, including research engineers (n=5), health systems and social science researchers (n=6), clinician-researchers (n=4), and practitioner-researchers (n=2). The research approach combined deductive and inductive coding, followed by abductive and retroductive inference processes to identify generative mechanisms underlying observed decision-making patterns. Qualitative system dynamics modeling was applied to visualize causal loop relationships through triangulated data sources.

resultsThree interrelated generative mechanisms were identified that shape researchers' decision-making regarding economic considerations: (1) the professional norms, operating through reinforcing loops that systematically prioritize clinical validation while marginalizing economic considerations; (2) the researcher experience, revealing how professional training and limited economic literacy create cognitive biases that obscure economic factors; and (3) the DTx adoption uncertainties, demonstrating how implementation concerns influence development decisions through both reinforcing and balancing feedback loop dynamics. These mechanisms explain why, despite growing recognition of the importance of economic evidence, economic considerations remain peripheral in researchers' decision frameworks.

conclusionsThis study reveals complex interactions between institutional structures, intrapersonal factors, and implementation uncertainties that systematically deprioritize economic considerations in DTx development. The identified mechanisms provide valuable intervention points for strengthening the development process toward a more comprehensive assessment of clinical, technical, and economic value throughout the DTx lifecycle to ultimately enhance their adoption in health care systems.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDigital TechnologyDelivery of Health CareHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative Researchcost-effectivenesscritical realismdecision-makingdecision theorydigital healthdigital therapeuticseconomic evaluationqualitative studysystem dynamics

Identifiers

PMID40957007
PMCPMC12485261

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.