Almost half of the tested apps were deficient or insufficient. In order to improve safety of patients using apps, some regulation seems mandatory. Putting apps under the legislation for medical products might be one way to better regulate and control quality. Second, efforts should focus on the development of checklists that make it easier for patients to search for suitable cancer apps.

Background: As there are few data worldwide concerning the frequency and relevance of interactions of prescribed drugs in hemato-oncology, we analyzed the medication prescribed to patients at a clinic within a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: Details of the medication prescribed for all patients in 2011 were extracted from their discharge letters. All potential medication combinations were assess with respect to the risk of interaction using 3 specialized websites. Results: The files of 202 patients receiving 275 drugs were extracted; 4,303 drug combinations were created. Overall, 88% of these combinations were found to be harmless with an interaction value (IV) of 1. However 10% showed potential risk of probable interaction (IV 2 + 3). 47% of the patients had at least 1 drug combination with a risk of interaction. A maximum of 29 drugs with 15 probable and possible interactions were found. Conclusion: Awareness for this topic should be raised in physicians and patients. An important step for avoiding risks of interactions is a systematic check of all drugs prescribed. There is urgent need for reliable data on clinically relevant interactions and for a better network in which physicians and pharmacists can exchange data about relevant interactions.

Mobile apps are offered in large numbers and have different qualities. The aim of this article was to develop a rating tool based on formal and content-related criteria for the assessment of cancer apps and to test its applicability on apps. After a thorough analysis of the literature, we developed a specific rating tool for cancer apps based on the MARS (mobile app rating system) and a rating tool for cancer websites. This instrument was applied to apps freely available in stores and focusing on some cancer topic. Ten apps were rated on the basis of 22 criteria. Sixty percent of the apps (6/10) were rated poor and insufficient. The rating by different scientists was homogenous. The good apps had reliable sources were regularly updated and had a concrete intent/purpose in their app description. In contrast, the apps that were rated poor had no distinction of scientific content and advertisement. In some cases, there was no imprint to identify the provider. As apps of poor quality can give misinformation and lead to wrong treatment decisions, efforts have to be made to increase usage of high-quality apps. Certification would help cancer patients to identify reliable apps, yet acceptance of a certification system must be backed up.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund und Ziel Menschen in Deutschland haben eine hohe Sensibilität bezüglich ihrer Gesundheitsdaten. So stellen sich auch in Hinblick auf die elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) Fragen zu patientenseitigem Datenhoheitsbedürfnis und Akzeptanz. Die Möglichkeit, in der ePA gespeicherte Daten selektiv weiterbehandelnden Ärzten vorzuenthalten (Opt-out), und ein Vorwissen des Patienten über die ePA könnten Einfluss auf das Datenhoheitsbedürfnis und auf die Akzeptanz der ePA haben. Das Ziel dieser explorativen Studie ist es, diese Einflüsse für die 3 Patientengruppen „Akutpatienten“, „Diabetes-Typ-2-Patienten“ und „Palliativpatienten“ zu untersuchen, da hier Unterschiede vermutet werden. Material und Methoden Von August bis Oktober 2019 wurde eine quantitative Befragung unter 140 Patienten der genannten Gruppen durchgeführt. Ergebnisse 76,0 % der Befragten befürworten die selektive Opt-out-Möglichkeit und erklärten, dass sich ihre Bereitschaft zur Teilnahme an der ePA dadurch erhöht. Gruppenspezifisch erklärten dies 81,1 % der Akutpatienten, 80,6 % der Palliativpatienten sowie 65,6 % der Diabetes-Typ-2-Patienten. Die Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen waren nicht signifikant. Ein generelles Vorwissen zur ePA hing mit einem höheren Datenhoheitsbedürfnis zusammen – 43,2 % derjenigen, die von der ePA-Einführung noch nie bewusst gehört hatten, würden ihre Gesundheitsdaten gelegentlich vor anderen Ärzten verbergen gegenüber 54,5 %, die von der Einführung wussten. Diskussion Die Berücksichtigung des Datenhoheitsbedürfnisses von Patienten bei der weiteren Etablierung der ePA wird empfohlen. Die selektive Opt-out-Möglichkeit kann zur Akzeptanz beitragen. Die Kenntnisse zur ePA sollten v. a. im Arzt-Patienten-Gespräch erweitert werden, um eine informierte Entscheidung zu ermöglichen.