Regulating digital therapeutics for mental health: Opportunities, challenges, and the essential role of psychologists

With so many promising digital therapeutics for anxiety and obsessive‐compulsive (OC) spectrum problems, there is an urgent need to consider how evolving regulatory oversight of digital therapeutics is poised to shift how these tools are developed, evaluated, reimbursed, and delivered. In this comme...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of clinical psychology 2022-01, Vol.61 (S1), p.130-135
Hauptverfasser: Carl, Jenna R., Jones, Deborah J., Lindhiem, Oliver J., Doss, Brian D., Weingardt, Kenneth R., Timmons, Adela C., Comer, Jonathan S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 135
container_issue S1
container_start_page 130
container_title British journal of clinical psychology
container_volume 61
creator Carl, Jenna R.
Jones, Deborah J.
Lindhiem, Oliver J.
Doss, Brian D.
Weingardt, Kenneth R.
Timmons, Adela C.
Comer, Jonathan S.
description With so many promising digital therapeutics for anxiety and obsessive‐compulsive (OC) spectrum problems, there is an urgent need to consider how evolving regulatory oversight of digital therapeutics is poised to shift how these tools are developed, evaluated, reimbursed, and delivered. In this commentary, we discuss both opportunities and potential pitfalls associated with emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health, and we consider how applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine and limit the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations that have been explicitly designed to expand the accessibility of care. For example, the vast majority of behavioural and mental health providers do not have ‘prescription privileges’ (a term originally rooted in pharmacologic practices), and as a result, under current regulations in the U.S. would not be authorized to make FDA‐cleared digital therapeutics available to their patients. This is particularly concerning given that most digital therapeutics for mental health are directly rooted in psychological and behavioural science, yet psychologists would not be authorized to incorporate these innovations into their practice. We consider how synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful, and we conclude by arguing that multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the discipline and practice of psychology. Practitioner points Emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health present both opportunities and potential pitfalls Applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations. Synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful. Multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the field of psychology.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/bjc.12286
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2495402553</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2495402553</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3536-d7570d156f8c5a6a8b8bf168ce80c545e4191103e5144260741c0b56227319c93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFv1DAQhS0EokvLgT-ALHEBiW09duxke4MVUKpKlRCcLceZJF5542A7Qvvv8bKFA1J98Xj0vSfPPEJeAbuEcq7anb0Ezhv1hKw4q6p1wxV7SlYMSq2UrM_Ii5R2jIEQTDwnZ0IoWR6wIss3HBZvspsG2rnBZeNpHjGaGZfsbKJ9iHSP07E_ovF5vKb38xxiXiaXHab31I7Ge5yGY22m7iinmFLRuCKKwSMNPZ3TwY7Bh8GlnC7Is974hC8f7nPy4_On79ub9d39l6_bD3drK6RQ666WNetAqr6x0ijTtE3bg2osNszKSmIFGwAmUJZBy8h1BZa1UnFeC9jYjTgnb0--cww_F0xZ712y6L2ZMCxJ82ojK8alFAV98x-6C0ucyu80V6AkCF5Bod6dKBtDShF7PUe3N_GggeljFrpkof9kUdjXD45Lu8fuH_l3-QW4OgG_nMfD40764-32ZPkbHjaSXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2616513241</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Regulating digital therapeutics for mental health: Opportunities, challenges, and the essential role of psychologists</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Carl, Jenna R. ; Jones, Deborah J. ; Lindhiem, Oliver J. ; Doss, Brian D. ; Weingardt, Kenneth R. ; Timmons, Adela C. ; Comer, Jonathan S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Carl, Jenna R. ; Jones, Deborah J. ; Lindhiem, Oliver J. ; Doss, Brian D. ; Weingardt, Kenneth R. ; Timmons, Adela C. ; Comer, Jonathan S.</creatorcontrib><description>With so many promising digital therapeutics for anxiety and obsessive‐compulsive (OC) spectrum problems, there is an urgent need to consider how evolving regulatory oversight of digital therapeutics is poised to shift how these tools are developed, evaluated, reimbursed, and delivered. In this commentary, we discuss both opportunities and potential pitfalls associated with emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health, and we consider how applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine and limit the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations that have been explicitly designed to expand the accessibility of care. For example, the vast majority of behavioural and mental health providers do not have ‘prescription privileges’ (a term originally rooted in pharmacologic practices), and as a result, under current regulations in the U.S. would not be authorized to make FDA‐cleared digital therapeutics available to their patients. This is particularly concerning given that most digital therapeutics for mental health are directly rooted in psychological and behavioural science, yet psychologists would not be authorized to incorporate these innovations into their practice. We consider how synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful, and we conclude by arguing that multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the discipline and practice of psychology. Practitioner points Emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health present both opportunities and potential pitfalls Applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations. Synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful. Multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the field of psychology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-6657</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-8260</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bjc.12286</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33650131</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Access ; Anxiety Disorders ; Behavioral sciences ; digital therapeutics ; FDA ; Health behavior ; Humans ; Innovations ; Mental Health ; mHealth ; Multidisciplinary teams ; Obsessive compulsive disorder ; online treatment ; Paradigms ; Psychologists ; Psychology ; Regulation ; technology</subject><ispartof>British journal of clinical psychology, 2022-01, Vol.61 (S1), p.130-135</ispartof><rights>2021 The British Psychological Society</rights><rights>2021 The British Psychological Society.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The British Psychological Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3536-d7570d156f8c5a6a8b8bf168ce80c545e4191103e5144260741c0b56227319c93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3536-d7570d156f8c5a6a8b8bf168ce80c545e4191103e5144260741c0b56227319c93</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8123-8322</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fbjc.12286$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fbjc.12286$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,30976,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33650131$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carl, Jenna R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Deborah J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindhiem, Oliver J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doss, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weingardt, Kenneth R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timmons, Adela C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comer, Jonathan S.</creatorcontrib><title>Regulating digital therapeutics for mental health: Opportunities, challenges, and the essential role of psychologists</title><title>British journal of clinical psychology</title><addtitle>Br J Clin Psychol</addtitle><description>With so many promising digital therapeutics for anxiety and obsessive‐compulsive (OC) spectrum problems, there is an urgent need to consider how evolving regulatory oversight of digital therapeutics is poised to shift how these tools are developed, evaluated, reimbursed, and delivered. In this commentary, we discuss both opportunities and potential pitfalls associated with emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health, and we consider how applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine and limit the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations that have been explicitly designed to expand the accessibility of care. For example, the vast majority of behavioural and mental health providers do not have ‘prescription privileges’ (a term originally rooted in pharmacologic practices), and as a result, under current regulations in the U.S. would not be authorized to make FDA‐cleared digital therapeutics available to their patients. This is particularly concerning given that most digital therapeutics for mental health are directly rooted in psychological and behavioural science, yet psychologists would not be authorized to incorporate these innovations into their practice. We consider how synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful, and we conclude by arguing that multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the discipline and practice of psychology. Practitioner points Emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health present both opportunities and potential pitfalls Applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations. Synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful. Multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the field of psychology.</description><subject>Access</subject><subject>Anxiety Disorders</subject><subject>Behavioral sciences</subject><subject>digital therapeutics</subject><subject>FDA</subject><subject>Health behavior</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Mental Health</subject><subject>mHealth</subject><subject>Multidisciplinary teams</subject><subject>Obsessive compulsive disorder</subject><subject>online treatment</subject><subject>Paradigms</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>technology</subject><issn>0144-6657</issn><issn>2044-8260</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUFv1DAQhS0EokvLgT-ALHEBiW09duxke4MVUKpKlRCcLceZJF5542A7Qvvv8bKFA1J98Xj0vSfPPEJeAbuEcq7anb0Ezhv1hKw4q6p1wxV7SlYMSq2UrM_Ii5R2jIEQTDwnZ0IoWR6wIss3HBZvspsG2rnBZeNpHjGaGZfsbKJ9iHSP07E_ovF5vKb38xxiXiaXHab31I7Ge5yGY22m7iinmFLRuCKKwSMNPZ3TwY7Bh8GlnC7Is974hC8f7nPy4_On79ub9d39l6_bD3drK6RQ666WNetAqr6x0ijTtE3bg2osNszKSmIFGwAmUJZBy8h1BZa1UnFeC9jYjTgnb0--cww_F0xZ712y6L2ZMCxJ82ojK8alFAV98x-6C0ucyu80V6AkCF5Bod6dKBtDShF7PUe3N_GggeljFrpkof9kUdjXD45Lu8fuH_l3-QW4OgG_nMfD40764-32ZPkbHjaSXw</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Carl, Jenna R.</creator><creator>Jones, Deborah J.</creator><creator>Lindhiem, Oliver J.</creator><creator>Doss, Brian D.</creator><creator>Weingardt, Kenneth R.</creator><creator>Timmons, Adela C.</creator><creator>Comer, Jonathan S.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8123-8322</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>Regulating digital therapeutics for mental health: Opportunities, challenges, and the essential role of psychologists</title><author>Carl, Jenna R. ; Jones, Deborah J. ; Lindhiem, Oliver J. ; Doss, Brian D. ; Weingardt, Kenneth R. ; Timmons, Adela C. ; Comer, Jonathan S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3536-d7570d156f8c5a6a8b8bf168ce80c545e4191103e5144260741c0b56227319c93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Access</topic><topic>Anxiety Disorders</topic><topic>Behavioral sciences</topic><topic>digital therapeutics</topic><topic>FDA</topic><topic>Health behavior</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Mental Health</topic><topic>mHealth</topic><topic>Multidisciplinary teams</topic><topic>Obsessive compulsive disorder</topic><topic>online treatment</topic><topic>Paradigms</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carl, Jenna R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Deborah J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindhiem, Oliver J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doss, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weingardt, Kenneth R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timmons, Adela C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comer, Jonathan S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of clinical psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carl, Jenna R.</au><au>Jones, Deborah J.</au><au>Lindhiem, Oliver J.</au><au>Doss, Brian D.</au><au>Weingardt, Kenneth R.</au><au>Timmons, Adela C.</au><au>Comer, Jonathan S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Regulating digital therapeutics for mental health: Opportunities, challenges, and the essential role of psychologists</atitle><jtitle>British journal of clinical psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Clin Psychol</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>130</spage><epage>135</epage><pages>130-135</pages><issn>0144-6657</issn><eissn>2044-8260</eissn><abstract>With so many promising digital therapeutics for anxiety and obsessive‐compulsive (OC) spectrum problems, there is an urgent need to consider how evolving regulatory oversight of digital therapeutics is poised to shift how these tools are developed, evaluated, reimbursed, and delivered. In this commentary, we discuss both opportunities and potential pitfalls associated with emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health, and we consider how applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine and limit the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations that have been explicitly designed to expand the accessibility of care. For example, the vast majority of behavioural and mental health providers do not have ‘prescription privileges’ (a term originally rooted in pharmacologic practices), and as a result, under current regulations in the U.S. would not be authorized to make FDA‐cleared digital therapeutics available to their patients. This is particularly concerning given that most digital therapeutics for mental health are directly rooted in psychological and behavioural science, yet psychologists would not be authorized to incorporate these innovations into their practice. We consider how synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful, and we conclude by arguing that multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the discipline and practice of psychology. Practitioner points Emerging government regulations of digital therapeutics for mental health present both opportunities and potential pitfalls Applying the traditional ‘prescription‐based’ medical approval paradigm to digital therapeutics for mental health could ultimately undermine the broad accessibility of these software‐based innovations. Synchronizing regulatory standards across countries may prove useful. Multidisciplinary teams making regulatory decisions concerning digital therapeutics for mental health must include representation from the field of psychology.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33650131</pmid><doi>10.1111/bjc.12286</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8123-8322</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0144-6657
ispartof British journal of clinical psychology, 2022-01, Vol.61 (S1), p.130-135
issn 0144-6657
2044-8260
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2495402553
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Access
Anxiety Disorders
Behavioral sciences
digital therapeutics
FDA
Health behavior
Humans
Innovations
Mental Health
mHealth
Multidisciplinary teams
Obsessive compulsive disorder
online treatment
Paradigms
Psychologists
Psychology
Regulation
technology
title Regulating digital therapeutics for mental health: Opportunities, challenges, and the essential role of psychologists
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T14%3A47%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Regulating%20digital%20therapeutics%20for%20mental%20health:%20Opportunities,%20challenges,%20and%20the%20essential%20role%20of%20psychologists&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20clinical%20psychology&rft.au=Carl,%20Jenna%20R.&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=130&rft.epage=135&rft.pages=130-135&rft.issn=0144-6657&rft.eissn=2044-8260&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bjc.12286&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2495402553%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2616513241&rft_id=info:pmid/33650131&rfr_iscdi=true