Evidence mapPaperPMID 41366646Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2025

Genie in the bottle? a qualitative study of general practitioners' perspectives and information needs concerning digital mental health applications in Germany.

Fatma Sahan, Karin Panitz, Charlotte Wagenaar, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Markus Vomhof, Maximilian Zinn, Lisa Guthardt, Jessica Bau, Adrian Loerbroks, Claudia R Pischke and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

11 authors.

Fatma SahanInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. Fatma.Sahan@hhu.de.
Karin PanitzInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Charlotte WagenaarInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Nadja Kairies-SchwarzInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Medical Faculty, Center for Health and Society, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Markus VomhofInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Medical Faculty, Center for Health and Society, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Maximilian ZinnInstitute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Medical Faculty, Center for Health and Society, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Lisa GuthardtInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Jessica BauInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Adrian LoerbroksInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Claudia R PischkeInstitute of Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Center for Health and Society, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Jennifer Apolinário-HagenInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concerning prevalence of mental disorders underscores the need for innovative solutions in outpatient care, including prescription digital therapeutics (DTx) designed as regulated software-based medical products for treatment and disease management. In Germany, approved DTx are called DiGAs (referring to "Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen") and can be prescribed since 2020 at the expense of statutory health insurance. However, DiGAs remain underutilized by general practitioners (GPs) in primary care. Although prior research indicated individual barriers to prescription among healthcare professionals, little is known on how acceptance-facilitating strategies could be tailored to GPs' needs. This study therefore explores GPs' perspectives on DiGAs in general and for mental health, focusing on their needs and wishes regarding information strategies.

methodsA qualitative descriptive exploratory study using semi-structured interviews with GPs was conducted within a mixed-methods study in fall 2024. Participants were recruited via GP networks, social media, and fax using a purposive sampling approach. Data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis with deductive-inductive category development.

resultsThirteen GPs between 27 and 66 years (median: 54 years, female: n = 3; 23%) were interviewed. Twelve participants (92%) had prescribed DiGAs at least once, mostly based on patients' requests for dealing with depression, insomnia or obesity. Analysis revealed varying levels of perceived knowledge and differing attitudes toward digitalization. Independent information sources, particularly from governmental and regulatory institutions, medical associations, and colleagues were mentioned, while ambivalent views on health insurances were reported. GPs favored information content on the evidence base, indications, usability, and cost effectiveness of DiGAs. In terms of delivery modes, online formats, in-person events, and traditional print media were named.

conclusionsGPs showed high engagement with DiGA prescriptions despite persistent knowledge gaps and ambivalent attitudes. They expressed expectations regarding information provision, emphasizing concise content from trusted, neutral sources, about central structural aspects (e.g., budgetary impact), delivered through familiar formats such as journals, lectures, and digital platforms. Information strategies should account for limited time resources in primary care and align with established routines. Strengthening institutional support and integrating digital health into medical training may further facilitate the adoption of DiGAs in primary care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PractitionersMental DisordersAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchDigital healthGeneral practitionersInformation literacyMental healthMental health servicesMobile applicationsPhysiciansQualitative researchTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID41366646
PMCPMC12687503

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.