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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of clinical psychology 2022-01, Vol.61 (S1), p.130-135 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 |