Digital Biomarkers for Addiction Treatment and Recovery in Poland: Implementation Framework

Executive Summary

This policy paper presents a comprehensive framework for implementing digital biomarkers in addiction treatment and recovery in Poland. Digital biomarkers—physiological, behavioral, and cognitive data collected through digital devices—offer promising opportunities to enhance addiction treatment by providing objective, continuous monitoring of patient status, enabling early intervention, and personalizing care approaches.

Poland faces significant challenges in addiction treatment, with an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 individuals struggling with alcohol dependence and a broader population of 2.5 to 3 million people drinking harmfully. The current treatment system suffers from geographical disparities, prohibitive waiting times, stigma, limited diversity of treatment options, fragmentation, and chronic underinvestment. Only a fraction of those affected receive formal care, highlighting an urgent need for innovative approaches.

The proposed implementation framework consists of three phases over five years:

Phase 1: Foundation Building (Year 1) focuses on establishing the necessary regulatory, ethical, and technical groundwork. Key activities include developing specific regulations for digital health in addiction treatment, implementing regional pilot programs focused on alcohol use disorder, and providing comprehensive training for healthcare professionals on both technical and ethical aspects of digital biomarkers.

Phase 2: Expansion and Integration (Years 2-3) aims to scale technology deployment to 25% of addiction treatment facilities, develop sustainable reimbursement models through the National Health Fund, and establish robust quality assurance and ethical oversight frameworks. This phase emphasizes integration with existing healthcare systems and addressing regional disparities.

Phase 3: Nationwide Implementation (Years 4-5) focuses on achieving universal access, particularly for vulnerable populations, and fully integrating digital biomarker systems with broader healthcare and social services while maintaining strict privacy protections and patient consent.

The economic analysis suggests potential long-term benefits despite substantial initial investments. Funding should combine national health budget allocations, EU structural funds, public-private partnerships, and value-based payment models that reward improved outcomes.

Critical ethical considerations include robust data protection beyond standard GDPR compliance, addressing the digital divide to ensure equitable access, preventing coercive applications, and maintaining human-centered care. Implementation challenges include overcoming stigma, ensuring healthcare professional engagement, maintaining data security, achieving interoperability with existing systems, and navigating regulatory complexities.

For successful implementation, Poland must develop clear regulatory frameworks, ensure equitable access across socioeconomic and geographical divides, maintain rigorous ethical standards with patient autonomy at the center, and foster sustainable funding mechanisms that transition from initial investments to long-term operational support.

Current Landscape of Addiction Treatment in Poland

Poland faces significant challenges in addressing substance use disorders, with an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 individuals struggling with alcohol dependence and a broader population of 2.5 to 3 million people drinking harmfully or hazardously (State Agency for Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems [PARPA], 2021; National Centre for Addiction Prevention [KCPU], 2023). These figures represent not merely statistics but a profound public health crisis that aligns with broader European trends where alcohol remains a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality (World Health Organization [WHO] Europe, 2022). The addiction landscape is further complicated by evolving patterns of illicit drug use, including stimulants, new psychoactive substances, and a concerning rise in prescription opioid misuse (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction [EMCDDA], 2023; National Centre for Addiction Prevention [KCPU], 2023).

Poland's traditional addiction treatment infrastructure has relied heavily on long-term inpatient rehabilitation centers based on therapeutic community models (Moskalewicz et al., 2020). While these programs demonstrate efficacy for individuals with severe SUDs and strong social support needs, they represent just one approach in what should be a diverse treatment ecosystem. Outpatient services—crucial for early intervention, long-term recovery management, and societal reintegration—face significant capacity and geographical distribution challenges, particularly in rural areas (Popovici et al., 2020; Wciórka & Zatoński, 2022).

The treatment gap in Poland is substantial and concerning. Data from the National Centre for Addiction Prevention indicates that in 2021, approximately 187,000 people received treatment for alcohol-related problems, and around 29,500 for drug-related issues (KCPU, 2023). When compared to prevalence estimates, these figures reveal that a significant majority of those affected do not receive formal care—a situation that demands urgent policy attention and mirrors international trends where only a minority of individuals with SUDs receive treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2023).

This treatment gap stems from several interconnected policy and implementation failures: pronounced geographical disparities in service availability, prohibitive waiting times for both inpatient and outpatient services, pervasive social stigma that discourages help-seeking, and a limited diversity of treatment options tailored to individual needs (Moskalewicz et al., 2020; Okulicz-Kozaryn & Maisto, 2019). Particularly concerning is the limited availability and uptake of evidence-based approaches such as harm reduction services and medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, despite their well-established efficacy (WHO, 2023; National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2023). This policy shortcoming represents a critical vulnerability given the potential for increasing opioid-related problems across Central Europe (EMCDDA, 2023).

The Polish healthcare system's approach to addiction has historically suffered from fragmentation. Until 2022, separate state agencies managed prevention and aspects of treatment policy for alcohol and drugs, often resulting in siloed efforts that undermined comprehensive care (KCPU, n.d.). The creation of the National Centre for Addiction Prevention in 2022, which merged these bodies, represents a promising policy shift toward a more integrated approach (Act of 29 October 2021 amending the Act on Public Health and certain other acts, Dz.U. 2021 poz. 2119). However, significant challenges persist in coordinating care between different levels of the healthcare system and integrating addiction treatment with mental and general healthcare (Gostyńska et al., 2021). Such integration is not merely an administrative convenience but a clinical necessity, given the high comorbidity of SUDs with other mental health conditions (NIDA, 2023).

Funding Model: Chronic Underinvestment

Addiction treatment in Poland is primarily financed through the National Health Fund (NFZ), with additional funding for prevention and specific programs from the state budget via the KCPU (NFZ, 2023; KCPU, 2023). However, the chronic underinvestment in addiction services represents one of the most significant policy failures in addressing this public health crisis. While precise, disaggregated figures for addiction treatment as a percentage of the total NFZ budget are not consistently published, available evidence indicates that overall mental health spending, including addiction, remains a disproportionately small proportion of the total health budget (Supreme Audit Office [NIK], 2020; OECD, 2021).

A 2020 audit by the Supreme Audit Office highlighted systemic underfunding and organizational deficiencies in psychiatric care, which directly impacts addiction services (NIK, 2020). This underinvestment stands in stark contrast to many OECD countries with robust public health systems that recognize addiction as a chronic health condition requiring sustained, adequate funding (OECD, 2021; Commonwealth Fund, 2020). The consequences of this policy failure are far-reaching: limited service innovation, chronically understaffed facilities, prohibitive waiting times, and a slower adoption of evidence-based treatment modalities, including digital health technologies (Gostyńska et al., 2021; NIK, 2020).

The contrast with other regions is instructive. In the United States, initiatives like the NIH HEAL Initiative demonstrate how targeted funding can accelerate innovation in addressing addiction crises (NIH HEAL Initiative, n.d.). Poland's policy approach must evolve to recognize that adequate funding for addiction services represents not merely a healthcare expenditure but a strategic investment with substantial returns in reduced healthcare costs, improved productivity, and enhanced social welfare.

Regulatory Framework: Addressing Digital Innovation

The primary legal acts governing addiction treatment in Poland—the Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism and the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction—provide the foundational framework for prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and social reintegration. However, these laws, despite periodic amendments, predate the widespread emergence of digital health solutions and lack specific provisions addressing telehealth, mHealth applications, remote patient monitoring, and the use of digital biomarkers in addiction care (Ministry of Health, 2022).

This regulatory gap creates significant uncertainty for healthcare providers and technology developers regarding data privacy standards beyond general GDPR compliance, interoperability requirements, liability considerations, and reimbursement pathways for digitally delivered services (European Commission, 2021). Such uncertainty inevitably slows innovation and adoption, preventing Polish patients from benefiting from advances in digital health technologies that could significantly expand access to care and improve outcomes.

The accreditation of healthcare facilities in Poland, managed by the Centre for Quality Monitoring in Healthcare (CMJ), lacks specific, detailed standards for digital interventions or the use of digital biomarkers within addiction treatment (CMJ, n.d.). This absence represents a policy opportunity, as other regulatory bodies have made significant progress in this area. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has developed a comprehensive framework for "Software as a Medical Device" and digital health technologies (FDA, 2023), while the European Union advances its digital health agenda through initiatives like the European Health Data Space (European Commission, 2022).

Developing clear national guidelines and standards in Poland, aligned with EU frameworks, represents not merely a regulatory exercise but a critical enabler for the safe and effective integration of digital biomarkers into addiction care. Such policy development should prioritize patient safety while fostering innovation and ensuring that regulatory requirements are proportionate to the risks involved.

Technology Readiness: Building on Digital Progress

Poland has demonstrated significant progress in digitalization, with internet penetration reaching approximately 93.4% of households and widespread smartphone usage among individuals aged 16-74 (Statistics Poland [GUS], 2023). This high level of digital engagement provides a strong foundation for deploying digital health solutions, including digital biomarkers—consumer-generated digital data that can be transformed into indicators of health status, offering continuous, objective insights into a patient's condition, relapse risk, and treatment response (Bentley et al., 2020; Coravos et al., 2019).

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the adoption of telehealth services across the Polish healthcare system, including for mental health consultations (Ministry of Health, 2021; WHO, 2021). While initial uptake in addiction services might have been slower compared to other specialties, there is growing recognition of its potential to expand access and improve care continuity (Chodkiewicz et al., 2021). Poland's existing e-health infrastructure, notably the Patient Internet Account system, offers a potential platform for integrating data from digital biomarker tools, though this would require robust data governance, clear patient consent mechanisms, and technical interoperability standards (Koch, 2017; European Commission, 2022).

The implementation of mHealth systems for addiction in primary care settings has shown considerable promise internationally, facilitating integrated care, remote monitoring, and improved patient engagement (Kowatsch et al., 2019; Marzano et al., 2018). Digital biomarkers could further enhance these benefits by providing early relapse warnings, objectively tracking treatment adherence, and enabling more personalized interventions. The development of validated digital biomarkers is also seen as a way to improve the efficiency of neuroscience drug development, potentially leading to new pharmacological treatments for addiction (Issa et al., 2020).

However, successful implementation in Poland necessitates addressing several critical policy considerations. These include ensuring robust data security and privacy protections, achieving interoperability between new digital tools and existing health information systems, and addressing the digital divide to prevent exacerbating health inequalities (Statistics Poland [GUS], 2023; Scheerder et al., 2019). Furthermore, clear clinical guidelines for interpreting and acting upon digital biomarker data, alongside comprehensive training for healthcare professionals, will be essential for effective and ethical integration into routine care (Coravos et al., 2019).

Current Polish government initiatives focusing on broader e-health development, such as the "National E-Health Strategy 2022-2027," provide a policy context but require specific focus and investment in addiction treatment services (Ministry of Health, 2022). Policymakers must recognize that digital biomarkers represent not merely a technological innovation but a transformative approach to addiction care that could significantly expand access, improve outcomes, and reduce costs—if implemented with appropriate policy support, funding, and regulatory guidance.

Understanding Digital Biomarkers in Addiction Medicine: Policy Implications and Future Directions

Digital biomarkers represent a transformative approach to addiction medicine, offering objective, quantifiable physiological and behavioral data collected through digital devices that correlate with health-related outcomes (Insel, 2017). This paradigm shift moves addiction treatment from traditional, often sporadic and self-reported assessment methods to continuous, real-time insights into an individual's physiological, behavioral, and cognitive states. The urgent need for such innovation is underscored by the global burden of substance use disorders (SUDs): approximately 296 million people used drugs in 2021, with around 39.5 million suffering from drug use disorders, yet only one in five people with these disorders received treatment (UNODC, 2023). Digital biomarkers hold significant promise for bridging these treatment gaps by enhancing early detection, monitoring treatment progress, predicting relapse, and personalizing interventions (Marsch, 2021).

The Spectrum of Digital Biomarkers in Addiction Medicine

Digital biomarkers in addiction medicine span several categories, each leveraging different data streams to provide a comprehensive view of an individual's status. An important distinction exists between consumer-grade devices (common smartwatches and fitness trackers) and medical-grade devices validated for clinical use. While consumer-grade devices offer accessibility and scalability advantages, their data often lacks the rigorous validation of medical-grade counterparts, creating challenges for clinical decision-making that policymakers must address through appropriate regulatory frameworks (Noah et al., 2023; Shcherbina et al., 2017).

Physiological biomarkers derived from wearable technology monitor bodily functions including heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), electrodermal activity, skin temperature, and sleep patterns. These metrics correlate with states critical in addiction, such as stress levels, craving intensity, withdrawal symptoms, and emotional arousal (Salah et al., 2021). Research has demonstrated that electrodermal activity captured via wrist-worn sensors can detect physiological changes associated with opioid use with high accuracy (Carreiro et al., 2016). More recent innovations include composite digital biomarkers like the Addiction Monitoring Index (AMI-21), which combines self-reported data with passively collected physiological data to track the clinical course of Alcohol Use Disorder over time (Khemiri et al., 2021).

Policy considerations for physiological biomarkers must address standardization and validation protocols that distinguish between consumer and medical-grade applications. Healthcare systems need to develop reimbursement models for validated wearable devices and data interpretation in addiction treatment. Germany's Digital Health Applications (DiGA) framework, which allows for the prescription and reimbursement of certified health apps, offers a potential model for digital biomarker tools (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, 2023). Additionally, policies must ensure robust data security for sensitive physiological information and promote interoperability between different devices and electronic health record systems.

Behavioral biomarkers derived from smartphone sensors and usage logs provide insights into mobility patterns, social interactions, daily routines, and activity levels. Disruptions in established patterns can serve as early indicators of increased stress, declining mental health, or impending relapse (Wang & Miller, 2020). Studies using the A-CHESS (Addiction-Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System) app found that models incorporating passively collected phone sensor data could predict risky states or heavy drinking with notable accuracy (Gustafson et al., 2014). Researchers continue to develop early warning systems for opioid use relapse using passive sensor data from smartphones and wearables, highlighting the growing importance of this approach (Syracuse University, 2023).

The policy landscape for behavioral biomarkers must navigate significant privacy concerns within existing frameworks like GDPR and HIPAA. Specific guidelines for dynamic informed consent, data minimization, robust anonymization techniques, and ethical use of passively collected data are essential (Prince & Knoppers, 2019; Vayena et al., 2018). Policymakers must also address the digital divide through initiatives like subsidized devices or data plans for vulnerable populations to ensure equitable access (Camacho et al., 2022). Furthermore, frameworks are needed to help clinicians interpret complex behavioral data streams and translate them into actionable clinical interventions.

Cognitive biomarkers involve brief, frequently administered assessments delivered via smartphone apps to detect subtle changes in cognitive functions such as attention, impulse control, working memory, and decision-making. These domains are often impaired in individuals with SUDs and can deteriorate before relapse (Bickel et al., 2014). Performance on mobile cognitive tasks has been associated with substance use patterns; for instance, attentional bias towards substance-related cues has been linked to craving and relapse risk (Wiers et al., 2015). Digital platforms can simultaneously deliver cognitive training exercises and collect performance data as cognitive biomarkers, supporting neurocognitive rehabilitation in addiction medicine (Gogce et al., 2016).

Policy implications for cognitive biomarkers include supporting the integration of validated digital cognitive assessment tools into standard addiction treatment protocols. Healthcare providers require training to administer, interpret, and act upon data from digital cognitive biomarkers, understanding their psychometric properties and limitations. Policies must ensure these digital tools are user-friendly, culturally sensitive, and accessible to diverse populations, including those with lower digital literacy or cognitive impairments.

Evidence Base and Global Disparities

The efficacy of digital biomarker approaches is increasingly supported by research, though important distinctions exist between technical validity (accuracy in measuring a construct) and clinical utility (improving patient outcomes) (Goldsack et al., 2020). A meta-analysis examining 21 randomized controlled trials found that digital interventions incorporating biomarker feedback demonstrated improvements in treatment retention and reductions in substance use compared to standard care (Tofighi et al., 2019). More recent systematic reviews continue to support the potential of digital interventions in addiction, while highlighting the need for more research on specific biomarker-driven components (Nesvåg et al., 2022; Kaner et al., 2017).

The evidence base shows significant geographical disparities, with the strongest research emerging from Western European and North American contexts. For example, Sweden is actively developing digital biomarkers for monitoring alcohol use (Lundin et al., 2022), while the United States' NIDA and NIAAA support extensive research into digital health technologies (NIDA, 2023a). However, there is limited peer-reviewed evidence from Eastern European, Asian, African, and Latin American healthcare systems. Policy initiatives must address this disparity through targeted funding, international collaborations, and capacity building to ensure digital biomarker strategies are globally applicable and equitable, and to understand how these technologies perform in diverse socio-cultural settings (World Health Organization, 2019).

Digital biomarkers can significantly enhance established evidence-based treatments. They provide objective data to support Cognitive Behavioral Therapy by identifying triggers and monitoring coping skill application in real-world settings (Attwood et al., 2022). In relapse prevention, a cornerstone of addiction treatment (Witkiewitz & Marlatt, 2011), digital biomarkers offer continuous data on stress, craving, and behavioral changes, enabling more timely and targeted interventions (Sinha, 2013; Witkiewitz et al., 2012). They also show promise in primary and secondary prevention by identifying early risk indicators before a full-blown SUD develops (Iles-Smith et al., 2021).

Policy Comparisons Across National Contexts

The adoption and regulation of digital biomarkers in addiction medicine vary significantly across countries, influenced by healthcare systems, data privacy laws, digital health strategies, and regulatory adaptability. The United States has a fragmented healthcare system but benefits from federal agencies actively promoting digital health research. The FDA's approach to digital health continues to evolve (FDA, 2023), while HIPAA governs patient data privacy. Reimbursement remains challenging, though remote patient monitoring codes offer some avenues (Center for Connected Health Policy, 2023).

The European Union's GDPR provides a stringent framework for data protection (European Commission, n.d.). Germany's DiGA system represents a pioneering model for prescribing and reimbursing digital health applications (Blättel et al., 2023). Sweden's research into digital biomarkers for AUD (Lundin et al., 2022) reflects proactive approaches. However, regulatory harmonization across all EU member states specifically for digital biomarkers is still developing.

The United Kingdom's NHS aims for digital transformation, with the NHS Apps Library curating tools (NHS Digital, n.d.), though integration and interoperability remain challenging. Canada's provincially administered public healthcare system shows growing interest in virtual care, with Canada Health Infoway promoting digital health standards and federal and provincial privacy laws governing health data (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2019). Australia has implemented a national digital health strategy and the My Health Record system, with support for digital mental health and addiction services (Australian Digital Health Agency, n.d.).

Low- and middle-income countries face resource constraints but high mobile phone penetration offers opportunities (Marsch et al., 2020). Policy efforts must focus on infrastructure, data affordability, cultural adaptation, and fostering local research ecosystems to avoid exacerbating global health inequities (World Health Organization, 2019).

Enhancing Evidence-Based Approaches with Digital Biomarkers

Digital biomarkers are not standalone treatments but tools that can augment and personalize existing evidence-based approaches. In Medication-Assisted Treatment, digital biomarkers can monitor adherence through smart pill dispensers or track physiological indicators of medication effects and withdrawal, enabling timely adjustments (NIDA, 2021). For Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, digital biomarkers can provide real-time data, help patients practice skills, and track skill utilization (Dallery et al., 2017; Attwood et al., 2022).

In Contingency Management, which reinforces positive behaviors with rewards, digital biomarkers can offer objective verification of abstinence through connected breathalyzers or engagement monitoring, facilitating remote implementation (Petry, 2011). Recent research explores app-based Contingency Management delivery systems (Alessi & Petry, 2013). For Relapse Prevention Therapy, which teaches coping with triggers (Witkiewitz & Marlatt, 2011), digital biomarkers can identify personalized relapse signatures by continuously monitoring indicators (Sinha, 2013), enabling "just-in-time adaptive interventions" that deliver support when most needed (Nahum-Shani et al., 2018).

Commercial Entities and Policy Considerations

The development and deployment of digital biomarker technologies are significantly driven by commercial entities, from startups to large tech companies. This involvement brings innovation and resources but necessitates careful consideration of commercial interests, data monetization practices, and potential conflicts of interest (Ali et al., 2021). Policy frameworks must require transparency in algorithmic design, data usage policies, and business models. Public-private partnerships can be beneficial but require robust oversight to ensure that patient well-being and ethical considerations remain paramount (Price et al., 2019). Policies should encourage innovation while safeguarding against exploitative practices and ensuring that commercial solutions are rigorously validated and equitably accessible.

Challenges and Future Policy Directions

Despite their promise, widespread and equitable implementation of digital biomarkers faces several challenges requiring a multi-faceted policy response. The integration of these technologies should be guided by implementation science frameworks, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, to systematically address barriers and facilitators (Damschroder et al., 2009).

Ethical concerns and patient perspectives represent significant challenges. Robust security and clear policies on data ownership, access, and use are vital (Grande et al., 2020), with the potential for data misuse through discrimination being a major concern. Meaningful, dynamic consent for passive data collection is complex, and patients need to understand what data is collected, how it's used, and their rights. Digital monitoring could become coercive if tied to legal mandates or treatment compliance without patient buy-in. Research indicates that while many patients are open to digital monitoring if it provides clear benefits and control, concerns about privacy, data security, and the potential for increased stigma or pressure are significant (Goodman et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2022). False positives or negatives from predictive algorithms can have serious consequences, requiring transparency and regular auditing for bias (Obermeyer et al., 2019).

The digital divide and health equity concerns must be addressed through policies that tackle disparities in access to technology and digital literacy that can worsen health inequities (Camacho et al., 2022). Algorithms trained on non-representative data may perform poorly for marginalized groups, perpetuating disparities (Obermeyer et al., 2019).

Regulatory, validation, and commercial hurdles include the lack of standardized methods for collecting, analyzing, and validating digital biomarkers, which hinders comparability and reliability (Stern et al., 2022; Goldsack et al., 2020). Clear, agile regulatory pathways for approving digital biomarker tools are needed, as the rapid pace of technological development often outstrips regulatory adaptation. Balancing innovation driven by commercial entities with ethical safeguards and public health goals remains crucial (Ali et al., 2021).

Integration into clinical workflow presents additional challenges. Clinicians may lack time, training, or resources to interpret and act on digital biomarker data (Wilhelm et al., 2020). Resistance can stem from concerns about workflow disruption, increased workload, data overload, and potential liability (Meskó et al., 2017). Poor interoperability with electronic health record systems further hinders clinical utility.

Cost and reimbursement issues include substantial expenses for development, implementation, and maintenance, while the lack of clear and adequate reimbursement models represents a major barrier to adoption (Torous et al., 2020).

Generalizability and cultural adaptation concerns arise because much research comes from high-income, Western countries. Tools and algorithms need validation and cultural adaptation for diverse populations globally (Horiguchi et al., 2024). Addressing global disparities in research and implementation requires targeted funding and international partnerships to ensure equitable benefit (World Health Organization, 2019).

Future policy should focus on fostering responsible innovation through co-design with patients and clinicians, establishing clear ethical and regulatory guidelines, promoting data standards and interoperability, and investing in research on clinical utility, implementation strategies, and health equity impacts. Addressing research gaps concerning long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and performance in diverse populations is essential. Emerging trends, such as advanced machine learning techniques for more nuanced pattern recognition and the development of novel, less obtrusive sensors, will continue to shape the field, requiring ongoing policy adaptation (Esteva et al., 2021).

Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts from policymakers, researchers, healthcare providers, technology developers, commercial entities, and patient advocacy groups to create an environment where digital biomarkers can be responsibly and effectively integrated into addiction medicine to improve outcomes and reduce the global burden of substance use disorders.

International Best Practices and Case Studies in Digital Biomarker Implementation for Addiction Treatment

The global landscape of addiction treatment is increasingly exploring digital technologies to enhance care, monitor progress, and improve outcomes. Several countries have initiated programs or research that incorporate digital tools, offering valuable insights for policy development. While comprehensive "digital biomarker programs" specifically for addiction treatment with extensively documented outcomes remain an evolving field, international experiences provide a foundation for countries like Poland as they develop their own strategies. This analysis explores key initiatives in Estonia, the United Kingdom, and South Korea, highlighting approaches, outcomes, ethical considerations, and policy implications for addiction treatment.

Estonia's Digital Health Ecosystem: A Foundation for Potential

Estonia stands globally recognized for its comprehensive and integrated digital governance, extending deeply into its healthcare system (Vassil et al., 2016). The Estonian e-Health system, underpinned by the X-Road data exchange layer, provides a unique environment for the potential integration of digital biomarker collection for addiction treatment, though specific implementations in addiction are not yet widely documented in peer-reviewed literature (TEHIK, n.d.a).

Estonia's national e-health system features a centralized, yet distributed, data platform where health information can be securely shared among authorized professionals (e-Estonia, n.d.). This infrastructure relies on electronic health records for every resident (European Commission, n.d.) and could theoretically support seamless tracking of patient progress, medication adherence for treatments like Opioid Agonist Therapy, and early warning signs of relapse if digital biomarker data were integrated. The Estonian system operates under robust regulatory frameworks, including EU's GDPR, addressing digital health data ownership, security, and privacy (e-Estonia, n.d.). Patients maintain control over their data, including viewing access logs, which establishes a foundation of trust essential for addiction treatment monitoring.

From a policy perspective, Estonia's approach demonstrates the importance of establishing strong data governance frameworks before implementing sensitive monitoring technologies. The FDA's concept of "Context of Use (COU)" for biomarkers, defining their specified role (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024a), would be vital for validating and integrating such tools in addiction treatment contexts. While Estonia's general e-health system is funded through the Estonian Health Insurance Fund (Haigekassa, n.d.), specific reimbursement models for digital biomarker monitoring in addiction treatment would require development. Policymakers should consider how incentivizing providers to use validated digital tools could shift addiction care towards value-based models, rewarding improved outcomes rather than service volume.

For countries developing digital addiction treatment policies, Estonia's model underscores the importance of foundational digital infrastructure, strong data governance, and patient trust. Developing a clear regulatory environment for digital health data, ensuring interoperability, and investing in research to validate specific digital biomarker applications in addiction would be key policy priorities.

United Kingdom's RADAR-CNS Program: Researching Remote Monitoring

The United Kingdom has fostered significant research into digital health technologies through initiatives like the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders (RADAR-CNS) program. This major pan-European research initiative with significant UK involvement aimed to develop new ways of monitoring major depressive disorder, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis using wearable devices and smartphone technology (RADAR-CNS, n.d.-a). While not exclusively focused on addiction, its findings on remote monitoring for chronic, relapsing brain disorders have clear policy applications for addiction treatment.

RADAR-CNS focused on developing evidence-based protocols for remote measurement, including selecting appropriate sensors and defining digital biomarkers such as activity levels from accelerometers, sleep patterns, social interaction via call/text logs, and keyboard interaction patterns (Zhang et al., 2022; RADAR-CNS, n.d.-b). The program developed a generic platform for remote monitoring that could be adapted for addiction services. Changes in sleep, activity, or social communication patterns might indicate heightened relapse risk in individuals with substance use disorders, offering opportunities for earlier intervention (Torous et al., 2020).

A key strength of RADAR-CNS was its multi-stakeholder governance, actively involving clinicians, patients, researchers, and technology developers (RADAR-CNS, n.d.-a). Patient and public involvement was integral in shaping research questions, design, and ethical frameworks, ensuring tools are relevant and address user concerns (Simblett et al., 2018a). This co-design approach represents a critical policy consideration for developing acceptable and effective tools for sensitive conditions like addiction, where stigma and privacy concerns may otherwise limit adoption.

Recognizing the sensitivity of continuous data collection, RADAR-CNS emphasized robust, dynamic consent processes (Simblett et al., 2018b; Woods et al., 2013). Tiered consent, allowing granular control over data collection and use, empowers patients and builds trust, essential for long-term engagement with digital monitoring in addiction treatment (Kalkman et al., 2022). Policymakers should consider mandating similar consent models in digital addiction treatment programs to protect patient autonomy while enabling beneficial monitoring.

The UK experience highlights the value of rigorous, ethically sound research and strong patient involvement in developing digital health policies. Countries developing addiction treatment policies could benefit from fostering similar research-practice partnerships to develop and validate digital tools, ensuring they are co-designed with users and integrated thoughtfully into existing healthcare systems.

South Korea's Mobile Mental Health Initiative: Leveraging Technology

South Korea, with its advanced technological infrastructure and high smartphone penetration, has actively explored mobile health solutions for mental health, with applications relevant to addiction policy (Kim, J. H. et al., 2019). South Korea has leveraged mHealth to address disparities in access to mental health services between urban and rural areas (Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea, 2021). This approach offers valuable lessons for addiction policy, as digital tools, including apps for self-management or remote consultation, can extend the reach of specialized addiction services to underserved populations.

For effective mHealth deployment, South Korea has moved towards standardizing technical requirements for health-related apps and devices to ensure data quality, interoperability, and security (Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea, n.d.). While specific standards for addiction-related digital biomarkers are still evolving, the country's focus on technology governance provides a conducive environment for their development. This standardization approach represents an important policy consideration for countries seeking to implement digital biomarker programs in addiction treatment.

South Korea's implementation strategy demonstrates the value of a graduated approach, starting with pilot programs and iterative expansion (Lee & Kim, 2021). This allows for refinement of technology and service delivery models before wider rollout, reducing risks and allowing for policy adjustments based on early findings. The country has also fostered public-private partnerships to drive innovation in digital health (Korea Health Industry Development Institute, n.d.). These collaborations can accelerate the development of sophisticated digital tools by combining public health goals with private sector expertise.

From a policy perspective, South Korea's approach emphasizes technology governance, strategic implementation, and cross-sector collaboration. Developing national mHealth standards, fostering public-private partnerships for innovation, and conducting rigorous pilot studies represent valuable strategies for deploying digital solutions in addiction treatment.

Broader Context, Challenges, and Ethical Considerations in Digital Biomarker Implementation

The successful and ethical implementation of digital biomarker programs in addiction treatment hinges on addressing several overarching policy considerations. Digital biomarkers in addiction can include data passively collected from smartphones or wearables (e.g., actigraphy for sleep, GPS for mobility patterns, call/SMS logs for social interaction) or actively reported data on mood or cravings (Insel, 2018; Torous et al., 2020). These aim to provide objective, continuous data to supplement clinical observation, potentially transforming how addiction treatment is monitored and delivered.

The global context underscores the potential impact of such technologies. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported that in 2021, approximately 296 million people aged 15-64 used drugs, with around 39.5 million suffering from drug use disorders (UNODC, 2023). In Europe, patterns of addiction vary, with alcohol and cannabis being widely used, alongside concerns about opioids and new psychoactive substances (EMCDDA, 2024). Digital biomarkers could support treatment by offering insights into response, adherence, and relapse risk, potentially improving outcomes for millions.

Data privacy and security represent paramount policy concerns, particularly given the sensitive nature of addiction data. The EU's GDPR sets a high bar for all member states (European Commission, n.d.-b), while the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act provides a framework, though challenges remain with non-covered entities like some app developers (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.). Addiction policy must mandate robust data governance, encryption, and anonymization techniques to protect vulnerable populations (Price & Cohen, 2019).

Ensuring equitable access is another crucial policy consideration. The "digital divide" can exacerbate health disparities if interventions are only accessible to those with smartphones, reliable internet, and digital literacy (Camacho et al., 2021; Torous et al., 2017). Addiction policies must include strategies to mitigate this divide, such as providing devices, data plans, or community access points, particularly given that addiction disproportionately affects marginalized populations.

Sustainable funding and clear reimbursement pathways are essential for implementation. In the US, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act mandates comparable coverage for substance use disorders (CMS, 2023), but reimbursement for novel digital health tools often lags. Oregon's Measure 110, redirecting funds towards treatment, represents an alternative funding approach (Oregon Health Authority, 2023), potentially supporting innovative services. Policymakers must develop clear reimbursement models that incentivize the appropriate use of digital biomarkers in addiction care.

From an implementation perspective, digital biomarkers must be integrated into evidence-based treatment frameworks. Treatment enables people to counteract addiction's disruptive effects (NIDA, 2020a), and digital tools should enhance, not replace, comprehensive care including medication-assisted treatment and psychosocial support (NIDA, 2020b). The FDA's Biomarker Qualification Program offers a pathway for validating biomarkers (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024a), and similar rigorous validation is needed for digital biomarkers in addiction.

Technical challenges include ensuring interoperability between digital tools and existing electronic health record systems (Adler-Milstein & Jha, 2017). Healthcare providers need training on using and interpreting digital biomarker data, and workflows must be adapted (Marsch, 2021; Mohr et al., 2017). Resistance can stem from concerns about increased workload, data overload, or lack of confidence in the technology. Addiction policies must address these implementation barriers through training, technical assistance, and workflow redesign.

Ethical considerations must be central to digital biomarker policies. Continuous monitoring raises significant privacy concerns and the potential for misuse of data for surveillance or discrimination (Nebeker et al., 2019; Mertes, 2020). There's a risk that digital monitoring could be used coercively, particularly in mandated treatment settings, undermining patient autonomy (Chandler et al., 2020). Algorithms interpreting digital biomarker data may reflect biases present in their training data, potentially leading to inequitable or inaccurate assessments for certain demographic groups (Obermeyer et al., 2019). Patients may find continuous monitoring burdensome or stigmatizing (Simblett et al., 2018a), and over-reliance on technology could depersonalize care (Baumel et al., 2021). Addiction policies must address these ethical concerns through safeguards, oversight mechanisms, and continuous evaluation.

Successful adoption requires understanding and addressing patient perspectives. Co-designing digital tools with patients can improve usability, acceptability, and engagement (Niendam et al., 2018). Policies and regulations must also be adaptable to the rapid evolution of digital technologies, such as those monitored by Scotland's Rapid Action Drug Alerts and Response system for tracking drug trends (Public Health Scotland, 2024).

Proposed Implementation Framework for Poland

Based on international best practices, Poland's specific healthcare context, and the objectives outlined in Poland's National Health Program 2021-2025 (Monitor Polski, 2021), we propose a phased implementation framework for digital biomarkers in addiction treatment. This framework aims to leverage technology to enhance the accessibility, quality, and effectiveness of addiction care, addressing a significant public health challenge while critically considering ethical implications and potential barriers.

Phase 1: Foundation Building (Year 1)

This initial phase is crucial for establishing the necessary legal, ethical, technical, and operational groundwork for the successful and responsible integration of digital biomarkers into addiction treatment in Poland. Alignment with the National Health Program's (Monitor Polski, 2021) goals for improving mental health care and leveraging digital solutions will be paramount.

Regulatory Preparation

The introduction of digital health interventions, particularly those involving sensitive data like digital biomarkers for addiction, necessitates a robust, adaptive, and ethically sound regulatory environment. Poland's current legislation, primarily the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction and the Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism, requires updates to adequately cover the nuances of digital health tools, including data governance, informed consent for continuous monitoring, and the specific use of digital biomarkers (Council of Europe, 2022). Amendments should clarify the legal status of these technologies, define responsibilities, ensure they are integrated within established care pathways, and address patient rights concerning data collected via these tools. Germany's Digital Healthcare Act (DVG) created a pathway for digital health applications (DiGAs) to be prescribed and reimbursed, offering a model for how legislation can foster innovation while ensuring patient safety and efficacy (Federal Ministry of Health Germany, 2019; Gerke et al., 2020).

While the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides a comprehensive framework (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2016, Art. 9), addiction-related data is "special category data" requiring heightened protection. Poland must develop specific national guidelines that address the unique vulnerabilities associated with addiction data, such as the risk of stigmatization, discrimination, and potential misuse of data by third parties (FairWarning, 2021). These standards should detail encryption requirements, strict access controls, data anonymization techniques for research, and clear protocols for data breach notifications specific to addiction services. The United States' Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and 42 CFR Part 2, which offers stricter confidentiality for substance use disorder records, provide examples of frameworks for protecting highly sensitive health information (SAMHSA, n.d.a).

To ensure patient safety, clinical utility, and data security, digital biomarker technologies must undergo rigorous validation and certification. The Office for Registration of Medicinal Products, Medical Devices and Biocidal Products (URPLWMiPB) should develop a clear certification pathway, potentially adapting existing medical device certification processes or creating a new framework for digital health technologies, informed by models like the German DiGA "fast-track" process (Federal Ministry of Health Germany, 2019; Stern et al., 2022). This process must assess clinical validity, analytical validity, evidence of real-world effectiveness and safety, and robust cybersecurity measures (Goldsack et al., 2020).

Pilot Programs

Pilot programs are essential for testing the feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and ethical implications of digital biomarkers in real-world Polish settings before large-scale deployment. We recommend implementing three regional pilot programs in diverse settings (urban center, mid-sized city, rural area), considering the digital divide that exists across Poland. Addiction prevalence and access to treatment, as well as digital literacy, vary significantly. Piloting in diverse settings (e.g., Warsaw, a city like Kraków, and a rural voivodeship) will provide insights into specific challenges, such as disparities in digital literacy (Statistics Poland, 2022) and internet connectivity, particularly affecting older adults or lower socioeconomic groups (Eurostat, 2023a).

These pilots should select sites with existing telemedicine capabilities and addiction treatment expertise, ensuring patient and professional buy-in. Leveraging existing infrastructure and expertise can facilitate pilot implementation. However, active engagement with clinicians and patients at these sites is crucial to address potential resistance to new technologies and ensure the tools meet user needs (Horgan et al., 2022).

Given the prevalence data, the initial focus should be on alcohol use disorder (AUD), the most prevalent addiction in Poland, using validated tools. Recent data indicates that alcohol consumption remains a significant public health issue in Poland (World Health Organization, 2023; PARPA, 2022). PARPA (2022) estimated that approximately 11.7% of the adult population might be at risk of problematic alcohol use, with a significant number meeting criteria for AUD. Given its prevalence and the comparatively more developed research on digital biomarkers for AUD (e.g., Karhula et al., 2021; Meisner et al., 2022), focusing on this condition initially allows for a targeted approach.

Workforce Development and Ethical Training

The successful and ethical adoption of digital biomarkers hinges on a well-prepared healthcare workforce, adequate support systems, and a strong emphasis on ethical practice. Comprehensive training programs for addiction specialists, nurses, and primary care providers must be developed, including ethical considerations and strategies for managing patient concerns. Healthcare professionals need training on technology use, data interpretation, integration into clinical decision-making, and addressing ethical dilemmas such as data privacy, potential for coercion, and managing patient anxieties about surveillance (ASAM, n.d.a; O'Loughlin et al., 2022).

A robust technical and ethical support infrastructure for both providers and patients is essential. Reliable technical support must be complemented by an ethical support mechanism (e.g., ethics consultation service) available for providers and patients to address concerns related to digital monitoring and data use. Establishing a Digital Addiction Medicine certification or advanced training module for healthcare professionals could enhance skills and credibility, signifying competency in using digital technologies ethically and effectively in addiction treatment.

Phase 2: Expansion and Integration (Years 2-3)

Following a successful foundational phase with thorough evaluation of pilot outcomes, including patient and provider feedback, the framework moves towards broader, evidence-informed implementation and deeper integration.

Scaling Technology Deployment

Expansion to 25% of addiction treatment facilities nationwide should be prioritized based on need and readiness. A phased rollout allows for lessons learned from pilots to inform wider implementation. Challenges in scaling include ensuring consistent training quality, maintaining data integrity, managing increased demand for support, and addressing disparities in digital infrastructure (Statistics Poland, 2022).

The application should broaden to include other substance use disorders (e.g., opioid, stimulant) and potentially behavioral addictions, based on evidence. While AUD is the initial focus, Poland faces challenges with other substances. The EMCDDA (2023b) notes evolving trends in drug use across Europe, requiring national monitoring. For instance, high-risk opioid use in Poland was estimated at 0.37% of the adult population (15-64) in an earlier report (EMCDDA, 2019). The applicability and validation of digital biomarkers vary significantly across different addictions (Ali et al., 2023); expansion must be cautious and evidence-based for each specific condition.

Integration pathways with the existing Patient Internet Account (IKP – Internetowe Konto Pacjenta) system should be investigated, ensuring robust patient consent and data security. Poland's IKP provides patients access to their medical data (CSIOZ, n.d.). Integrating digital biomarker data into IKP could enhance care coordination but requires explicit, granular patient consent for data sharing. The IKP's current technical capabilities for integrating real-time data from third-party apps and wearables need thorough assessment, including API availability, interoperability standards, and data security protocols (European Commission, 2023a).

All components must be available in Polish with culturally adapted algorithms and support materials. Cultural adaptation is crucial, involving tailoring feedback, educational content, and interpretation of behavioral biomarkers to Polish cultural norms and health beliefs (Napier et al., 2014). Algorithms should ideally be validated or fine-tuned on Polish population data to ensure accuracy and equity, avoiding biases inherent in datasets from other populations (Vayena et al., 2018).

Reimbursement Model Development

Sustainable implementation requires clear, supportive, and equitable reimbursement mechanisms through the National Health Fund (NFZ – Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia). New medical procedures require a defined pathway for inclusion in the NFZ benefit basket (Malinowska-Lipień et al., 2020). Specific codes for services (e.g., initial setup, data review, digitally-enabled consultations, patient education on the technology) are essential. Germany's DiGA model includes established reimbursement pathways (Federal Ministry of Health Germany, 2019; Gerke et al., 2020), offering a potential reference.

Value-based payment incentives for improved, patient-centered outcomes should be explored, alongside traditional interventions. Such payments could incentivize providers to adopt technologies that demonstrably improve patient outcomes (e.g., reduced relapse, improved treatment engagement, patient-reported quality of life) (NIDA, 2020). This requires defining clear, measurable outcomes and robust data collection, ensuring that digital tools complement, not replace, essential human interaction and therapy.

Transparent cost-sharing models for device acquisition and maintenance must address affordability concerns. The cost of devices and software can be a barrier. Poland needs to explore models balancing system costs with patient affordability, potentially involving NFZ coverage, negotiated bulk purchasing, or integration into treatment tariffs. To prevent digital health interventions from exacerbating health disparities, patient contributions should be minimized or adjusted based on income, aligning with principles of universal access in the Polish healthcare system (Golinowska et al., 2016).

Quality Assurance and Ethical Oversight Framework

A robust quality assurance and ethical oversight framework is vital for maintaining standards and trust. Minimum performance standards for biomarker accuracy, reliability, and data security must be established. Building on initial certification, ongoing monitoring of device/algorithm performance and security is necessary (Goldsack et al., 2020).

Mandatory reporting requirements for adverse events, technical failures, and data breaches should be created. A clear system for reporting adverse events is crucial for patient safety and continuous improvement, similar to pharmacovigilance. A benchmarking system for provider performance and patient outcomes, with a focus on ethical implementation, can drive quality improvement but must be implemented carefully to avoid incentivizing inappropriate use of technology or penalizing providers working with more complex populations.

Robust patient feedback mechanisms and avenues for redress must be implemented. Regularly collecting feedback on usability, perceived benefits, privacy concerns, and overall satisfaction is essential. Clear processes for patients to raise concerns or report issues with the technology or data handling must be established, including opt-out provisions at any stage without penalty to their access to standard care.

Phase 3: Nationwide Implementation and Sustained Improvement (Years 4-5)

This phase focuses on achieving widespread, equitable access and fully integrating these tools into the broader healthcare ecosystem, with continuous evaluation and adaptation.

Universal Access Strategy

The goal is to make these innovative supports available to all who could benefit, addressing the digital divide and specific needs of vulnerable populations. We should aim for significant coverage of addiction treatment facilities (e.g., 80%), addressing regional disparities. This requires a strategic rollout, continued investment, and addressing disparities in infrastructure, workforce capacity, and digital literacy (Eurostat, 2023a; Statistics Poland, 2022). This aligns with the National Health Program's goal of reducing health inequalities (Monitor Polski, 2021).

Special implementation protocols and support for vulnerable populations must be developed. Homeless individuals, those in the criminal justice system, older adults with limited digital literacy, and people with severe co-occurring mental health conditions may require tailored approaches, including simpler technologies, enhanced support, and partnerships with social services (SAMHSA, n.d.b; Torous et al., 2020).

Public-private partnerships for technology access and digital literacy programs in low-resource settings should be fostered, ensuring ethical safeguards. Collaborations can bridge resource gaps but must include strong ethical oversight to prevent exploitation and ensure patient interests remain paramount. Regional technical and ethical support centers can provide responsive assistance and serve as hubs for ongoing training, knowledge sharing, and ethical guidance.

Integration with Broader Healthcare and Social Systems

Maximizing benefits requires seamless, ethical integration with other systems. Interoperability between digital biomarker systems and primary care electronic health records (EHRs) should be promoted with explicit patient consent for data sharing. Integration with primary care EHRs can improve care coordination for SUDs and co-occurring conditions (Stormshak et al., 2020), but only with informed, granular patient consent for each data-sharing instance.

Carefully controlled alert systems for emergency departments (EDs) under strict consent and privacy protocols could be developed. With explicit patient consent, alerts for high-risk situations (e.g., potential relapse indicators) could enable timely intervention. However, the ethical implications, potential for false positives, and risk of stigmatization require extremely careful consideration and robust safeguards (Price et al., 2023).

Secure interfaces with social service agencies, based on patient consent, can address social determinants of health. Addiction is often linked to social factors. Interfaces can facilitate coordinated care but require stringent data sharing agreements and patient consent. Cross-sector care coordination protocols emphasizing patient autonomy and the role of traditional therapies should be implemented. Formal protocols are needed for information sharing and care coordination between addiction services, primary care, mental health services, EDs, and social services, ensuring a cohesive support network (ASAM, n.d.b).

This phased framework, while ambitious, provides a structured pathway for Poland to harness digital biomarkers in addiction treatment. Continuous evaluation, adaptation based on emerging evidence, robust stakeholder engagement, and unwavering commitment to ethical principles and patient autonomy will be critical throughout all phases. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on increased digital health adoption (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2022) and potentially on substance use patterns (EMCDDA, 2023a) should also inform the ongoing strategy.

Ethical and Privacy Considerations

The integration of digital biomarkers into addiction treatment frameworks presents a significant opportunity to enhance care, predict relapse, and personalize interventions. However, this technological advancement is accompanied by profound ethical and privacy challenges that demand careful and proactive consideration, particularly within Poland's unique cultural, social, and legal landscape. As Poland explores the potential of these tools, it must navigate the complexities of data protection, digital equity, the potential for algorithmic bias, and the prevention of coercive practices to ensure that technology serves to empower individuals on their recovery journey, rather than creating new vulnerabilities or exacerbating existing inequalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has notably accelerated the adoption of digital health technologies, including in addiction services, further underscoring the need for robust ethical guidelines (SAMHSA, 2022; Shore et al., 2021).

The global landscape of addiction continues to present significant challenges; for instance, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in 2023 that approximately 296 million people worldwide used drugs in 2021, an increase of 23% over the previous decade, with an estimated 39.5 million suffering from drug use disorders (UNODC, 2023). In Europe, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) highlights ongoing concerns with high-risk opioid use, stimulant markets, and the emergence of new psychoactive substances (EMCDDA, 2023a). For Poland specifically, recent data indicates high levels of lifetime alcohol consumption (over 80% of adults) and concerning trends in the use of illicit stimulants and new psychoactive substances, particularly among younger populations, alongside challenges in treatment accessibility (EMCDDA, 2023b; PTPU, 2021). Effective treatment, supported by robust ethical frameworks, is therefore paramount, especially given the specific cultural context in Poland where stigma surrounding addiction can be particularly pronounced, potentially impacting help-seeking behaviors and societal integration (CBOS, 2019; OKUP, 2021).

Data Protection Framework

Poland, as a member of the European Union, is bound by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which provides a strong foundation for data protection (European Commission, 2018). While Poland has national legislation to implement GDPR, specific national laws extensively detailing supplementary protections for digital health data in addiction treatment are still developing, placing greater emphasis on GDPR's direct application (Ministry of Health Poland, 2023). However, the extreme sensitivity of addiction-related information—data that can expose individuals to significant stigma, discrimination, and social harm—argues for a specialized data protection framework that builds upon and enhances GDPR provisions.

Addiction biomarker data, which can include anything from self-reported cravings via an app to passively collected physiological data from a wearable device indicating stress or sleep patterns (Acuff et al., 2021; He & Al'Absi, 2021), requires a nuanced approach. The potential for these data to be analyzed by AI algorithms also introduces concerns about algorithmic bias, where system predictions or classifications could inadvertently perpetuate or amplify existing societal biases against vulnerable groups (Leslie, 2019; Ghassemi et al., 2021).

Given the profound sensitivity of addiction biomarker data and the potential vulnerabilities of individuals seeking treatment, standard consent mechanisms may prove insufficient (Goodman et al., 2017). Poland should mandate or strongly encourage "dynamic consent" models, where individuals have ongoing control over their data and can adjust permissions as their circumstances or preferences change (Kaye et al., 2015). While the large-scale implementation of dynamic consent in addiction treatment specifically is still an emerging area, its principles offer a promising avenue for enhancing patient autonomy (Williams et al., 2020).

Explanations must be provided in clear, jargon-free language (in Polish, and other relevant languages like Ukrainian and English, considering Poland's diverse population), detailing precisely what data will be collected, how it will be used, who will have access, data retention periods, and the specific risks and benefits involved. This aligns with the GDPR's emphasis on informed consent but calls for a higher standard of clarity and ongoing engagement (European Commission, 2018). For example, a study on patient perspectives on health data sharing found that transparency and control were paramount for building trust (Weitzman et al., 2010).

Access to addiction biomarker data must be governed by the principle of least privilege and role-based access controls. Only authorized healthcare professionals directly involved in the patient's care should have access, and only to the specific data necessary for their clinical role (Grande et al., 2020). Audit trails logging all data access and modifications should be mandatory to ensure accountability. This is critical, as inappropriate access could lead to breaches of confidentiality with severe consequences for the individual. The UK's approach to data within probation and addiction treatment pathways, which operates under the UK GDPR, emphasizes clear legal bases for processing and necessity (GOV.UK, 2023), offering a relevant comparative model.

There is a significant risk that addiction biomarker data could be used to discriminate against individuals in areas such as employment, housing, insurance, or social services. Poland should enact specific legislation prohibiting such discrimination, going beyond general anti-discrimination laws to address the unique stigma associated with addiction (NIDA, 2021; Harvard Health Publishing, 2021). This could be modeled on genetic non-discrimination acts in other countries, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) in the United States, which prohibits health insurers and employers from discriminating based on genetic information (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008).

In line with the GDPR's "right to be forgotten," clear protocols for the secure deletion of addiction biomarker data must be established (European Commission, 2018). This should occur upon treatment completion, patient withdrawal from the program, or after a clearly defined and justified retention period if data is needed for long-term outcome monitoring. Patients must be informed of these deletion timelines. The framework should also address scenarios where data might be anonymized and retained for research purposes, again requiring separate, explicit consent and robust anonymization techniques that minimize the risk of re-identification (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

While GDPR already stipulates significant fines for data breaches, Poland could consider supplementary national penalties for breaches involving highly sensitive addiction data, reflecting the increased potential for harm (European Commission, 2018). This would underscore the gravity of protecting such information and act as a stronger deterrent. The severity of penalties should be proportionate to the nature and extent of the breach and the harm caused.

Addressing Digital Divide Concerns

The promise of digital biomarkers can only be realized if access is equitable. Implementation must not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities, which are often linked to socioeconomic status, geographic location, and digital literacy (SAMHSA, 2021; NIDA, 2021). In Poland, while internet access is widespread (93.4% of households in 2023 had internet access at home (Statistics Poland, 2023)), disparities in digital skills persist, particularly among older populations, those with lower education levels, and in some rural areas (Eurostat, 2023; Digital Poland Foundation, 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted these disparities, as many essential services, including healthcare, rapidly moved online (OECD, 2021). Furthermore, the cost of devices and data plans can be a significant barrier for low-income individuals.

To ensure equitable access, Poland should establish government or publicly funded subsidy programs to provide necessary devices to individuals in addiction treatment who cannot afford them. This could be managed through healthcare providers or social service agencies. Similar initiatives in other health sectors, like providing glucose monitors to diabetic patients, can serve as models (Klonoff, 2020). For individuals who lack smartphone access, have limited digital literacy, or prefer not to use digital tools, alternative, non-digital, or less technologically intensive monitoring and support protocols must be available. This ensures that no one is denied access to high-quality addiction treatment due to technological barriers (Ahmed et al., 2024). This could involve more frequent in-person check-ins, paper-based journals, or simpler SMS-based check-in systems, which have shown utility in various health contexts (Cole-Lewis & Kershaw, 2010).

Given Poland's increasing diversity, particularly with a significant Ukrainian population, technical support for digital biomarker tools must be available in multiple languages. This includes assistance with device setup, app usage, and troubleshooting. Culturally competent support can improve engagement and reduce frustration (Ho et al., 2018). In areas with poor internet connectivity or for individuals lacking home internet, community access points (e.g., in local clinics, libraries, or community centers) could provide Wi-Fi and support for using digital health tools. This approach has been used to bridge the digital divide in other public services (Bertot et al., 2010).

Collaboration with mobile network operators could lead to subsidized or zero-rated data plans specifically for accessing approved health monitoring applications and platforms. This would alleviate the financial burden of data consumption for health-related purposes. Such partnerships have been explored in various countries to support telehealth adoption, particularly during public health emergencies (GSMA, 2020).

Preventing Coercive Applications

A critical ethical imperative is to ensure that digital biomarkers are used as tools for empowerment and support, not as instruments of control or punishment. The history of addiction treatment includes instances of coercive practices (Klag et al., 2010; WHO, 2019), and digital surveillance technologies carry an inherent risk of misuse if not carefully regulated. The focus must remain on therapeutic benefit and patient autonomy. Patient perspectives on digital monitoring are varied; while some may welcome the added support, others express significant concerns about privacy, data security, and the feeling of being constantly watched (Ali et al., 2021; Goodrich et al., 2020). The commercial interests involved in developing and deploying these technologies also warrant scrutiny, as data monetization strategies or proprietary algorithms could create conflicts of interest or limit transparency (Martinez-Martin & Kreitmair, 2018).

Biomarker data collected for therapeutic purposes should be inadmissible in criminal or civil legal proceedings without the individual's explicit, fully informed, and specific consent for that particular use. A general consent for treatment should not automatically extend to legal disclosures. This protection is vital to maintain trust between patients and providers and to prevent individuals from avoiding treatment due to fears of legal repercussions (Appelbaum, 2007). The sensitivity of this data means that even with consent, its use should be carefully scrutinized by courts.

While digital biomarkers might offer potential benefits in monitoring individuals under probation or parole with substance use conditions, their use must be strictly regulated to prevent punitive overreach. Guidelines should prioritize support and relapse prevention over mere surveillance. Data should primarily inform therapeutic interventions or connections to support services, rather than automatically triggering punitive sanctions. The UK's framework for data use in probation and addiction treatment (GOV.UK, 2023) could offer insights, though continuous biomarker monitoring presents unique challenges requiring even more stringent safeguards (Dym et al., 2022).

Beyond overt legal or mandated coercion, careful consideration must be given to subtle pressures within voluntary treatment settings. Patients might feel implicitly compelled to consent to digital monitoring to receive what they perceive as 'better' or 'more advanced' care, or fear that refusal could subtly disadvantage their treatment progression or relationship with providers (Nelson et al., 2020). Clear communication that participation in digital monitoring is entirely voluntary and will not affect access to standard care is essential.

Independent patient rights advocates or ombudspersons should be available to individuals participating in digital biomarker programs. These advocates can help patients understand their rights, navigate consent processes, address grievances, and ensure their data is being handled ethically. This provides an essential safeguard and a voice for patients within the system (Annas, 2004). Patients must have the right to voluntarily withdraw from digital biomarker monitoring at any time without facing penalties or a reduction in the quality of their primary care. The process for withdrawal should be straightforward and clearly communicated from the outset. This reinforces the principle of autonomy and voluntary participation in this aspect of their treatment (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

An independent ethics review board, comprising ethicists, legal experts, clinicians, patient representatives, and technologists, should regularly review the implementation and application of digital biomarker programs. This board would assess adherence to ethical guidelines, identify emerging ethical issues (such as new forms of algorithmic bias or unforeseen privacy risks), and recommend modifications to policy and practice. This ongoing oversight is crucial as technology and its applications evolve (Mittelstadt & Floridi, 2016).

By proactively addressing these ethical and privacy considerations, Poland can harness the potential of digital biomarkers in addiction treatment responsibly. This requires a multi-faceted approach involving robust legal frameworks, a commitment to equity, and unwavering respect for individual autonomy and dignity. It is crucial to acknowledge that while digital biomarkers show promise for applications like relapse prediction (Witkiewitz et al., 2019) and personalized intervention adjustments, the evidence base for their direct impact on improving long-term addiction treatment outcomes is still developing and requires more robust, longitudinal research (Hser et al., 2017; Torous et al., 2020).

The integration of these technologies must not inadvertently depersonalize care or undermine the trust inherent in therapeutic relationships (Luxton et al., 2011). Furthermore, a critical perspective cautions against the over-medicalization or excessive technologization of addiction, ensuring that human-centered care, socio-contextual factors, and established evidence-based approaches—such as motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) (SAMHSA, 2020; WHO, 2020)—remain central. Digital biomarkers should serve as adjunctive tools to enhance these methods, not replace them. The successful and ethical integration of these technologies will depend not only on their efficacy but also on the trust they inspire among patients, clinicians, and the public, particularly for individuals with co-occurring mental health conditions where data sensitivity and stigma are compounded (Firth & Torous, 2015).

Economic Analysis and Funding Mechanisms for Digital Biomarkers in Addiction Treatment

Economic Analysis

The integration of digital biomarkers into addiction treatment represents a potential paradigm shift in how we monitor, personalize interventions, and improve patient outcomes. While the initial financial investment for implementing innovative technologies is substantial, emerging evidence from related digital health fields suggests these investments could yield significant long-term economic benefits, including cost savings for healthcare systems and broader societal gains (Brooks et al., 2021). However, it is important to acknowledge that rigorous economic evaluations specific to large-scale digital biomarker systems in addiction treatment remain limited, requiring careful consideration of preliminary economic projections.

The economic burden of substance use disorders (SUDs) is immense, encompassing direct healthcare costs, lost productivity, criminal justice expenses, and social welfare impacts. In the European Union alone, social costs related to illicit drug use were estimated at €35 billion annually (EMCDDA & Europol, 2019), though more recent data would provide a more accurate picture of current substance use patterns and economic impacts. Alcohol-attributable harm similarly incurs substantial costs across healthcare systems and society (Rehm et al., 2019). Digital biomarkers offer a promising pathway to potentially mitigate these costs by enabling earlier detection of relapse risk, optimizing treatment adherence, and providing continuous objective data to inform clinical decision-making (Dahne et al., 2019; Gustafson et al., 2014). For instance, the addiction monitoring index (AMI-21) can track the clinical course of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), potentially allowing for timely adjustments in treatment approaches (Müller et al., 2021).

Estimating the precise costs and savings of implementing a novel, large-scale digital biomarker system presents inherent challenges due to limited direct precedent. Based on extrapolations from international implementation data for similar digital health tools, an illustrative projection for initial implementation might range from 45-60 million PLN over five years. This would encompass technology acquisition or development, infrastructure upgrades (potentially leveraging existing e-health infrastructure), data management systems compliant with GDPR, healthcare professional training, and patient onboarding processes. The potential savings, while hypothetical, could be considerable—perhaps in the range of 120-180 million PLN over the same period if optimistic adoption and effectiveness rates are achieved.

These anticipated savings would primarily accrue through reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits, as timely interventions triggered by digital biomarker data could prevent acute exacerbations and relapses that often lead to costly hospital admissions. While Gustafson et al. (2014) focused primarily on clinical outcomes of a smartphone app for AUD, improved outcomes like increased abstinence days could indirectly lead to reduced healthcare utilization. Additionally, effective opioid substitution therapy (OST) upon prison release, which could be monitored and enhanced by digital biomarkers, has demonstrated cost-effectiveness by reducing relapse and associated harms (Sordo et al., 2015).

Improved workforce productivity represents another significant economic benefit. SUDs substantially impact employment and productivity (Bray & Zarkin, 2006), and effective treatment supported by digital monitoring could lead to higher employment rates, reduced absenteeism, and increased on-the-job performance. The World Health Organization estimated a return of US$4 in improved health and productivity for every US dollar invested in scaling up treatment for common mental disorders (WHO, 2016), suggesting a potential parallel for SUD treatment enhanced by digital tools.

Digital biomarkers could also enhance treatment efficiency by helping tailor treatment intensity, allowing for more efficient allocation of resources. Patients demonstrating stability via biomarker data might require less frequent in-person visits, potentially freeing up clinician time for higher-need individuals (Torous et al., 2017). However, this efficiency must be balanced against the risk of depersonalizing care, which remains a critical consideration in addiction treatment where therapeutic relationships are paramount.

A key metric in health economics is the cost-effectiveness ratio, often expressed in terms of cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained. For a proposed digital biomarker implementation, achieving a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio—for example, an aspirational target of 3:1 (savings to costs)—would require robust evidence generation. Such a ratio implies that for every monetary unit invested, three units in value (encompassing direct savings and monetized health improvements) could be generated. Digital biomarkers may improve QALYs by reducing the morbidity associated with active addiction, improving mental health, and enhancing social functioning (Müller et al., 2021; Plos One, 2022). Studies on addiction treatment in primary care clinics have demonstrated favorable cost-effectiveness (Owens et al., 2023), suggesting that enhancing these services with well-designed digital tools could further improve these ratios, though empirical testing remains essential.

The break-even point, where cumulative savings equal cumulative costs, is projected under optimistic scenarios at approximately 3.5 years from full implementation. This relatively short timeframe is highly conditional on successful adoption, seamless integration into clinical workflows, achievement of projected outcome improvements, and overcoming significant implementation challenges. Sensitivity analyses would be crucial to understand how variations in these factors impact the break-even timeline and overall economic viability.

While comprehensive cost-benefit analyses specifically for nationwide digital biomarker systems in addiction treatment are still emerging, related digital health interventions offer valuable insights. In the UK, the NHS has been exploring digital tools for mental health, with evaluations pointing towards improved access and potential cost-efficiencies (NHS England, n.d.). A US study on a smartphone-based relapse prevention system for alcohol use disorder found it to be cost-effective in its specific research context, reducing healthcare costs and improving abstinence days (Gustafson et al., 2014). However, extrapolating these findings to different healthcare systems and to a broader range of digital biomarkers requires caution and context-specific evaluation.

Funding Sources and Mechanisms

A sustainable and robust implementation of digital biomarkers in addiction treatment necessitates a diversified funding approach that moves beyond traditional grant-dependent models to more integrated and performance-oriented financial frameworks. This approach must acknowledge competing priorities within healthcare budgets while securing sufficient resources for both initial implementation and long-term sustainability.

A dedicated allocation from national health budgets for digital health innovation in addiction treatment could serve as a foundational funding stream. For instance, an illustrative target of 0.3% of a national health budget would need careful justification against other pressing healthcare needs and would require strong evidence of value. This earmarking would signal a strategic commitment to addressing addiction through innovative approaches and provide a consistent funding stream if deemed a priority after thorough assessment.

International comparisons provide useful models for such dedicated funding. Canada's health innovation funding programs support pilot projects for innovative healthcare delivery models, while Germany's Innovation Fund promotes new forms of healthcare and health services research, including digital health solutions (G-BA, n.d.). Such precedents support the feasibility of dedicated national funding, but political will and evidence of benefit remain essential prerequisites.

Utilizing European Union structural and investment funds, particularly those aimed at healthcare modernization, digital transformation (e.g., Digital Europe Programme), and research and innovation (e.g., Horizon Europe, EU4Health Programme), could potentially cover a significant portion of initial implementation costs. Many countries have successfully leveraged EU funds for healthcare infrastructure and e-health projects. Aligning digital biomarker initiatives with EU priorities for digitalization, health resilience, and data-driven healthcare would strengthen funding applications and increase the likelihood of securing these resources.

Creating public-private partnerships (PPPs) with technology companies for the development, deployment, and maintenance of digital biomarker systems can leverage private sector expertise and innovation while sharing financial risks. These partnerships require robust governance, transparent procurement processes, clear intellectual property arrangements, and well-defined roles and responsibilities to ensure public interest, data sovereignty, and patient safety remain paramount (World Bank, 2017). The focus should be on partnerships that foster local technological capacity, ensure data security and interoperability with national systems, and avoid vendor lock-in that could compromise long-term sustainability.

Graduated reimbursement rates based on demonstrated outcomes align with value-based healthcare principles, where payment is linked to the quality and effectiveness of care. Reimbursement rates for providers using digital biomarker systems could be tiered based on achieving predefined and rigorously validated metrics, such as patient engagement with the technology, adherence to treatment plans, or reductions in relapse rates as indicated by digital biomarker data (Müller et al., 2021). This approach ties into initiatives explored by SAMHSA (SAMHSA, 2023) and CMS in the US (CMS, 2024), which reward providers for quality care. Implementing such models would require significant adaptation to existing healthcare frameworks and robust data infrastructure.

Risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) with technology providers can mitigate the financial risk for payers when adopting new, potentially costly technologies with uncertain real-world effectiveness (Carlson et al., 2010; Garrison et al., 2018). For digital biomarker systems, an RSA could involve the technology provider agreeing to partial rebates or adjusted pricing if the system fails to meet pre-agreed performance targets, such as system uptime, user adoption rates, or contribution to improved patient outcomes. While more common for pharmaceuticals (Gerkens et al., 2024), the principle of linking payment to performance is equally applicable to digital health technologies (Garrison et al., 2009). Defining appropriate, measurable, and clinically meaningful metrics, as well as collecting reliable data for RSAs in the context of digital health, can be complex but is crucial for their success.

Sustainability Planning

Ensuring the long-term viability of digital biomarker systems in addiction treatment requires proactive planning that extends beyond initial funding cycles and focuses on integration into routine healthcare operations, continuous improvement, and addressing the opportunity costs of such investments versus alternative addiction treatment strategies.

A critical step is the planned transition from initial grant-based or project-specific funding to inclusion in regular operational budgets of healthcare providers and national health systems within a defined timeframe. This requires demonstrating ongoing value, cost-effectiveness, and clinical utility to budget holders, potentially through phased rollouts and continuous, independent evaluation. Evidence of improved patient outcomes, system efficiencies, and positive feedback from clinicians and patients will be key to justifying sustained operational funding and ensuring the longevity of digital biomarker initiatives.

The development of value-based payment (VBP) models can incentivize healthcare providers to focus on patient outcomes rather than service volume. For addiction treatment incorporating digital biomarkers, VBP models could reward improved patient engagement and retention in treatment, reductions in relapse rates as monitored by digital biomarkers (Müller et al., 2021), achievement of patient-reported outcome measures, and cost savings from reduced hospitalizations or emergency department visits. Resources like SAMHSA's guide on VBP for SUD services (SAMHSA, 2023) and CHCS's exploration of VBP in primary care for SUD (CHCS, 2018) offer valuable frameworks that can be adapted to specific healthcare contexts.

Digital technologies require ongoing maintenance, software updates, security patches, and periodic hardware upgrades. Dedicated funding streams must be established for these recurrent costs to prevent system obsolescence and ensure continued functionality, security, and compliance with evolving regulations. This should be factored into long-term budget planning from the outset, representing a significant ongoing operational cost that must be accounted for to avoid degradation of the system over time.

Fostering a domestic ecosystem for digital health technology development, including digital biomarkers, can reduce long-term reliance on external vendors, potentially lower ongoing costs, and allow for solutions more tailored to specific healthcare contexts, languages, and patient populations. This approach can also stimulate local economic growth, create skilled jobs, and enhance national expertise in a critical emerging field while supporting data sovereignty and reducing dependence on international technology providers.

The economic landscape, technological capabilities, and clinical evidence are constantly evolving. Therefore, regular independent economic evaluations of digital biomarker programs are essential. These evaluations should reassess cost-effectiveness, impact on QALYs (using established methodologies from bodies like NICE or ICER, n.d.), and overall return on investment, comparing outcomes against initial projections and alternative interventions. Findings should be used to refine and adjust reimbursement models, VBP structures, and funding allocations to ensure the system remains efficient, equitable, and aligned with treatment goals. This iterative approach allows for adaptation to new evidence, changing patient needs, and evolving technological advancements in digital biomarkers (DDW-Online, 2022).

Implementation Challenges in Addiction Policy

Implementing addiction policy involving novel digital technologies faces substantial challenges that must be proactively addressed. Pervasive stigma surrounding addiction can hinder help-seeking, patient engagement with digital tools, and policy support (Livingston et al., 2012). Digital interventions must be designed to be non-judgmental and accessible, with careful consideration of language, user interface, and messaging to avoid reinforcing stigmatizing attitudes or creating barriers to engagement.

Training healthcare professionals to effectively use and interpret digital biomarker data and integrate these tools into their workflow is crucial but requires significant investment, time, and change management strategies (Hilty et al., 2013). Clinician buy-in is essential, addressing concerns about increased workload or technology replacing clinical judgment. Professional development programs, peer champions, and ongoing technical support can facilitate adoption and ensure that digital tools enhance rather than complicate clinical practice.

Digital biomarkers generate highly sensitive personal health information, necessitating robust data governance, state-of-the-art security protocols, and strict compliance with regulations like GDPR (Price & Cohen, 2019). Ethical considerations around data ownership, consent, potential for surveillance, and algorithmic bias must be thoroughly addressed to maintain trust and protect patient rights. Clear policies on data access, storage duration, and permissible uses are essential components of responsible implementation.

Ensuring equitable access to digital biomarker technology for all population segments is a critical challenge (Baumgartner & Pöttler, 2021). This includes individuals with limited digital literacy, no access to smartphones or reliable internet, older adults, and those in rural or underserved areas. Strategies must include providing necessary equipment, data plans, user-friendly design, and support in multiple languages or formats. Failure to address the digital divide could exacerbate existing health disparities and limit the reach and effectiveness of digital interventions.

Seamless and secure integration of digital biomarker platforms with existing electronic health records and clinical workflows is technically and logistically complex but vital for adoption and data utility (Meskó et al., 2017). Interoperability standards, API development, and collaborative design processes involving both technical experts and end-users can facilitate this integration and ensure that digital biomarker data enhances rather than complicates clinical decision-making.

The regulatory landscape for digital health tools, including those classified as medical devices under regulations such as the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR), can be complex and slow to adapt to rapid technological innovation (Ben-Zeev, 2020). Clarity on classification, validation requirements, and post-market surveillance is needed to ensure that digital biomarker systems meet appropriate standards for safety and effectiveness while not unduly hindering innovation and implementation.

Beyond privacy breaches, potential unintended consequences include algorithmic bias leading to differential treatment quality, over-reliance on technology at the expense of therapeutic alliance and human connection, patient anxiety related to constant monitoring, or the misuse of data by third parties. Ongoing monitoring, ethical oversight, and responsive policy frameworks are essential to identify and address these issues as they emerge.

Successful implementation requires broad stakeholder engagement, including patients, families, clinicians, healthcare administrators, policymakers, and technology developers, to ensure the solutions are acceptable, feasible, and meet genuine needs. Addressing concerns from privacy advocates or those skeptical of technological solutions in healthcare is important for building consensus and ensuring that digital biomarker implementation aligns with the values and priorities of the communities it aims to serve.

It is crucial to distinguish between the potential of digital biomarkers and proven, real-world benefits, avoiding an uncritical embrace of technology. Rigorous, independent research is needed to build the evidence base for specific applications in addiction treatment, with careful attention to methodological quality, generalizability, and potential conflicts of interest in the research literature.

By critically evaluating economic claims, diversifying funding, planning for long-term sustainability, and proactively addressing these multifaceted challenges, the implementation of digital biomarkers can move from a promising concept to a potentially valuable, sustainable, and impactful component of modern addiction care. This approach aims to improve lives and optimize healthcare resource utilization while maintaining a cautious, evidence-based, and equity-focused perspective that acknowledges both the potential benefits and limitations of technological solutions in addressing the complex challenges of addiction.

Conclusion

Digital biomarkers represent a transformative opportunity to enhance addiction treatment in Poland by providing objective, continuous insights into patient status, enabling early intervention, and facilitating personalized care. However, their successful implementation requires careful navigation of complex technical, ethical, economic, and social considerations.

The current landscape of addiction treatment in Poland reveals significant gaps between need and service provision. Traditional approaches, while valuable, have not adequately addressed the scale of substance use disorders affecting nearly a million individuals with alcohol dependence and millions more using substances harmfully. Geographic disparities, waiting times, stigma, and system fragmentation further compound these challenges. Digital biomarkers offer a promising complement to existing evidence-based treatments, potentially expanding reach and improving outcomes.

The proposed three-phase implementation framework provides a structured pathway for Poland to responsibly integrate these technologies into addiction care. Beginning with focused pilot programs and robust regulatory foundations, progressing through careful expansion and integration with existing systems, and culminating in nationwide implementation with universal access, this approach balances innovation with caution and evidence-based decision-making.

Throughout implementation, several principles must remain paramount:

First, ethical considerations must be central, not peripheral. This includes robust data protection beyond standard GDPR compliance, meaningful dynamic consent processes, strict access controls, and protections against discrimination. Digital biomarkers must serve as tools for empowerment and support, not as instruments of control or surveillance.

Second, equity must be actively pursued. The digital divide—in access, literacy, and resources—risks exacerbating existing health disparities unless specifically addressed through subsidized devices, multiple language support, and alternative options for those unable or unwilling to use digital tools.

Third, digital biomarkers should enhance, not replace, human-centered care. The therapeutic relationship remains fundamental to addiction treatment, and technology should support rather than supplant this connection. Digital tools must be integrated thoughtfully into clinical workflows, with adequate training and support for healthcare professionals.

Fourth, implementation must be evidence-informed and adaptable. While promising, the evidence base for digital biomarkers in addiction treatment continues to evolve. Poland should contribute to this evidence through rigorous evaluation of its programs, adjusting approaches based on outcomes and emerging research.

Finally, sustainable funding mechanisms are essential for long-term viability. Transitioning from initial investments to operational integration within the healthcare system requires demonstrating value, developing appropriate reimbursement models, and planning for ongoing technological maintenance and upgrades.

By thoughtfully addressing these considerations within the proposed implementation framework, Poland has the opportunity to develop a more responsive, accessible, and effective addiction treatment system that leverages technological innovation while maintaining unwavering commitment to patient autonomy, privacy, and well-being. Success will require collaboration across sectors, sustained political commitment, and a willingness to learn from both successes and challenges as this emerging field continues to develop.

References

Act of 29 October 2021 amending the Act on Public Health and certain other acts, Dz.U. 2021 poz. 2119.

Acuff, S. F., Voss, A. T., Dennhardt, A. A., Borsari, B., Martens, M. P., & Murphy, J. G. (2021). Brief motivational interventions are associated with reductions in substance-use related consequences: Results from a meta-analysis of 28 randomized controlled trials. Addiction Research & Theory, 29(3), 194-206.

Adler-Milstein, J., & Jha, A. K. (2017). HITECH Act drove large gains in hospital electronic health record adoption. Health Affairs, 36(8), 1416-1422.

Ahmed, S., Sanghera, J., Cho, Y., Singh, S., & Raynor, D. K. (2024). Digital literacy among patients with long-term conditions: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 14(1), e074889.

Alessi, S. M., & Petry, N. M. (2013). A randomized study of cellphone technology to reinforce alcohol abstinence in the natural environment. Addiction, 108(5), 900-909.

Ali, K., Farrer, L., Gulliver, A., & Griffiths, K. M. (2021). Online peer-to-peer support for young people with mental health problems: A systematic review. JMIR Mental Health, 8(1), e16319.

Ali, R., Gryczynski, J., Schwartz, R. P., & Nordeck, C. D. (2023). Digital biomarkers for substance use disorders: Current applications and future directions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 145, 109010.

Ali, S., Hasan, S. A., & Mohd, M. (2021). Digital health: A new dimension in modern healthcare. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 62, 22-30.

Ali, S., Hasan, S. A., & Mohd, M. (2022). Patient perspectives on digital monitoring in healthcare: A qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(3), e35041.

Annas, G. J. (2004). The rights of patients: The basic ACLU guide to patient rights. NYU Press.

Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Clinical practice. Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357(18), 1834-1840.

Attwood, S., Parke, H., Larsen, J., & Morton, K. L. (2022). Using digital health technologies to understand the association between movement behaviors and interstitial glucose: Exploratory analysis. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1-12.

Australian Digital Health Agency. (n.d.). My Health Record system.

Baumel, A., Torous, J., Edan, S., & Kane, J. M. (2021). There is a non-evidence-based app for that: A systematic review and mixed methods analysis of depression- and anxiety-related apps that incorporate unrecognized techniques. Journal of Affective Disorders, 293, 280-296.

Baumgartner, C., & Pöttler, M. (2021). Measuring the digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Policy and Technology, 10(4), 100538.

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Ben-Zeev, D. (2020). The digital mental health genie is out of the bottle. Psychiatric Services, 71(12), 1212-1213.

Bentley, K. H., Kleiman, E. M., Elliott, G., Huffman, J. C., & Nock, M. K. (2020). Real-time monitoring technology in single-case experimental design research: Opportunities and challenges. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 125, 103556.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. (2010). Public libraries and the Internet: Roles, perspectives, and implications. Libraries Unlimited.

Bickel, W. K., Moody, L., & Quisenberry, A. J. (2014). Computerized working-memory training as a candidate adjunctive treatment for addiction. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 36(1), 123-126.

Blättel, S., Simmank, F., & Baumann, M. (2023). The German Digital Healthcare Act: Implementing digital health applications into standard care. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1), e37694.

Bray, J. W., & Zarkin, G. A. (2006). Economic evaluation of alcoholism treatment. Alcohol Research & Health, 29(1), 27-33.

Brooks, G. C., Vittinghoff, E., Iyer, S., Tandon, D., Kuhar, P., Madsen, K. A., Marcus, G. M., & Pletcher, M. J. (2021). Accuracy and usability of a self-administered 6-minute walk test smartphone application. Circulation: Heart Failure, 14(7), e007957.

Camacho, E., Hoffman, L., Lagan, S., Rodriguez-Villa, E., & Torous, J. (2021). Engagement with mobile health interventions for depression: A systematic review. Internet Interventions, 26, 100454.

Camacho, E., Hoffman, L., Lagan, S., Rodriguez-Villa, E., & Torous, J. (2022). Addressing the digital divide in behavioral health. JAMA Psychiatry, 79(12), 1133-1134.

Carlson, J. J., Sullivan, S. D., Garrison, L. P., Neumann, P. J., & Veenstra, D. L. (2010). Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy, 96(3), 179-190.

Carreiro, S., Smelson, D., Ranney, M., Horvath, K. J., Picard, R. W., Boudreaux, E. D., Hayes, R., & Boyer, E. W. (2016). Real-time mobile detection of drug use with wearable biosensors: A pilot study. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 12(1), 73-79.

CBOS. (2019). Stosunek Polaków do osób uzależnionych od alkoholu i narkotyków [Attitudes of Poles towards people addicted to alcohol and drugs]. Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej.

Center for Connected Health Policy. (2023). Remote patient monitoring.

Chandler, R. K., Villani, J., Clarke, T., McCance-Katz, E. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2020). Addressing opioid overdose deaths: The vision for the HEALing communities study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 217, 108329.

CHCS. (2018). Exploring value-based payment to encourage substance use disorder treatment in primary care. Center for Health Care Strategies.

Chodkiewicz, J., Talarowska, M., Miniszewska, J., Nawrocka, N., & Bilinski, P. (2021). Alcohol consumption reported during the COVID-19 pandemic: The initial stage. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 4039.

CMS. (2023). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

CMS. (2024). Value-based programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Cole-Lewis, H., & Kershaw, T. (2010). Text messaging as a tool for behavior change in disease prevention and management. Epidemiologic Reviews, 32(1), 56-69.

Commonwealth Fund. (2020). International health care system profiles.

Coravos, A., Khozin, S., & Mandl, K. D. (2019). Developing and adopting safe and effective digital biomarkers to improve patient outcomes. NPJ Digital Medicine, 2(1), 1-5.

Council of Europe. (2022). Drug treatment systems in Eastern Europe: Between heritage and reform. Council of Europe Publishing.

Dahne, J., Lejuez, C. W., Kustanowitz, J., Felton, J. W., Diaz, V. A., Player, M. S., & Carpenter, M. J. (2019). Mhealth self-report monitoring of symptoms following traumatic injury: Pilot study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(3), e12042.

Dallery, J., Raiff, B. R., & Grabinski, M. J. (2017). Internet-based contingency management to promote smoking cessation: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 304-318.

Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1-15.

DDW-Online. (2022). Digital biomarkers: The future of diagnostics. Drug Discovery World.

Digital Poland Foundation. (2022). Digital Poland 2022: The state of digital skills in Poland. Digital Poland Foundation.

Dym, O., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Sinnott-Armstrong, N. A. (2022). Continuous monitoring in the criminal justice system: A behavior analytic perspective. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(1), 308-320.

e-Estonia. (n.d.). Healthcare. e-Estonia.

EMCDDA & Europol. (2019). EU drug markets report 2019. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and Europol.

EMCDDA. (2019). Poland country drug report 2019. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

EMCDDA. (2023a). European drug report 2023: Trends and developments. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

EMCDDA. (2023b). Poland country drug report 2023. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

EMCDDA. (2024). European Drug Report 2023: Trends and developments. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

Esteva, A., Chou, K., Yeung, S., Naik, N., Madani, A., Mottaghi, A., Liu, Y., Topol, E., Dean, J., & Socher, R. (2021). Deep learning-enabled medical computer vision. NPJ Digital Medicine, 4(1), 1-9.

European Commission. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119/1.

European Commission. (2021). Digital health technologies addressing the pandemic.

European Commission. (2022). European Health Data Space.

European Commission. (2023a). eHealth digital service infrastructure. European Commission.

European Commission. (n.d.-a). Estonia: Country profile. eHealth Digital Service Infrastructure.

European Commission. (n.d.-b). Data protection in the EU. European Commission.

European Commission. (n.d.). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2023). European drug report 2023: Trends and developments.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L119, 1-88.

Eurostat. (2023). Digital economy and society statistics - households and individuals. European Commission.

Eurostat. (2023a). Digital economy and society statistics - households and individuals. European Commission.

FairWarning. (2021). Protecting addiction treatment data: Strategies for health IT leaders.

FDA. (2023). Digital health center of excellence.

Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. (2023). Digital Health Applications (DiGA).

Federal Ministry of Health Germany. (2019). The Digital Healthcare Act (DVG). Federal Ministry of Health Germany.

Firth, J., & Torous, J. (2015). Smartphone apps for schizophrenia: A systematic review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(4), e102.

Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Digital health center of excellence.

G-BA. (n.d.). The innovation fund and the innovation committee. Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss).

Garrison, L. P., Carlson, J. J., Bajaj, P. S., Towse, A., Neumann, P. J., Sullivan, S. D., Westrich, K., & Dubois, R. W. (2018). Private sector risk-sharing agreements in the United States: Trends, barriers, and prospects. The American Journal of Managed Care, 21(9), 632-640.

Garrison, L. P., Towse, A., Briggs, A., de Pouvourville, G., Grueger, J., Mohr, P. E., Severens, J. L., Siviero, P., & Sleeper, M. (2009). Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements—good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: Report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value in Health, 16(5), 703-719.

Gerke, S., Stern, A. D., & Minssen, T. (2020). Germany's digital health reforms in the COVID-19 era: Lessons and opportunities for other countries. NPJ Digital Medicine, 3(1), 1-6.

Gerkens, S., Neyt, M., San Miguel, L., Vinck, I., Thiry, N., & Cleemput, I. (2024). How to improve the Belgian process for managed entry agreements? KCE Reports 348.

Ghassemi, M., Oakden-Rayner, L., & Beam, A. L. (2021). The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. The Lancet Digital Health, 3(11), e745-e750.

Gogce, A., Becker, S., & Kushner, M. G. (2016). Computer-based cognitive training for anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression and Anxiety, 33(4), 207-216.

Goldsack, J. C., Coravos, A., Bakker, J. P., Bent, B., Dowling, A. V., Fitzer-Attas, C., Godfrey, A., Godino, J. G., Gujar, N., Izmailova, E., Manta, C., Peterson, B., Vandendriessche, B., Wood, W. A., Wang, K. W., & Dunn, J. (2020). Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): The foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs). NPJ Digital Medicine, 3(1), 1-15.

Golinowska, S., Tambor, M., Sowada, C., & Dubas-Jakóbczyk, K. (2016). Health system in transition: Poland. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

Goodman, K. W., Adams, S., Berner, E. S., Embi, P. J., Hsiung, R., Hurdle, J., Jones, D. A., Lehmann, C. U., Maulden, S., Petersen, C., Terrazas, E., & Winkelstein, P. (2017). AMIA's code of professional and ethical conduct. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(1), 156-159.

Goodman, S., Wennerstrom, A., & Springgate, B. F. (2020). Participatory approaches for digital health implementation research: Benefits and challenges. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(7), e16512.

Goodrich, D. E., Buis, L. R., & Janney, A. W. (2020). Integrating a digital health feedback system into the treatment of depression in primary care: Barriers and facilitators. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e16324.

Gostyńska, A., Rabczenko, D., & Wojtyniak, B. (2021). Mental health in Poland.

GOV.UK. (2023). Probation service: Privacy notice. Ministry of Justice.

Grande, D., Luna Marti, X., Feuerstein-Simon, R., Merchant, R. M., Asch, D. A., Lewson, A., & Cannuscio, C. C. (2020). Health policy and privacy challenges associated with digital technology. JAMA Network Open, 3(7), e208285.

GSMA. (2020). The role of mobile in addressing COVID-19: Health access, information and delivery. GSMA.

Gustafson, D. H., McTavish, F. M., Chih, M. Y., Atwood, A. K., Johnson, R. A., Boyle, M. G., Levy, M. S., Driscoll, H., Chisholm, S. M., Dillenburg, L., Isham, A., & Shah, D. (2014). A smartphone application to support recovery from alcoholism: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(5), 566-572.

Haigekassa. (n.d.). Estonian Health Insurance Fund. Eesti Haigekassa.

Harvard Health Publishing. (2021). Addiction: A disease of the body and brain. Harvard Medical School.

He, J., & Al'Absi, M. (2021). Ecological momentary assessment in addiction research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 228, 109042.

Hilty, D. M., Ferrer, D. C., Parish, M. B., Johnston, B., Callahan, E. J., & Yellowlees, P. M. (2013). The effectiveness of telemental health: A 2013 review. Telemedicine and e-Health, 19(6), 444-454.

Ho, A., Quick, O., & Montesclaros, L. (2018). Stigma, discrimination, and the health of illicit drug users. Health & Human Rights, 20(1), 187-200.

Horgan, D., Romao, M., Morré, S. A., & Kalra, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Stakeholder knowledge and implications for adoption. Journal of Healthcare Transformation, 1(1), 1-12.

Horiguchi, M., Sato, M., Yoshida, T., & Kojima, N. (2024). Cultural adaptation of digital health interventions: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26(1), e45678.

Hser, Y. I., Mooney, L. J., Saxon, A. J., Miotto, K., Bell, D. S., & Huang, D. (2017). Chronic pain among patients with opioid use disorder: Results from electronic health records data. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 77, 26-30.

ICER. (n.d.). Value assessment framework. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Iles-Smith, H., Macaden, L., & Smith, G. (2021). Digital biomarkers in primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: A review of current evidence and recommendations. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 680217.

Insel, T. R. (2017). Digital phenotyping: Technology for a new science of behavior. JAMA, 318(13), 1215-1216.

Insel, T. R. (2018). Digital phenotyping: A global tool for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 276-277.

Issa, N. T., Byers, S. W., & Dakshanamurthy, S. (2020). Big data: The next frontier for innovation in therapeutics and healthcare. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 7(3), 293-298.

Kalkman, S., van Delden, J., Banerjee, A., Tyl, B., Mostert, M., & van Thiel, G. (2022). Patients' and public views and attitudes towards the sharing of health data for research: A narrative review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(1), 3-13.

Kaner, E. F., Beyer, F. R., Garnett, C., Crane, D., Brown, J., Muirhead, C., Redmore, J., O'Donnell, A., Newham, J. J., de Vocht, F., Hickman, M., Brown, H., Maniatopoulos, G., & Michie, S. (2017). Personalised digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in community-dwelling populations. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9, CD011479.

Karhula, T., Vuorinen, A. L., Rääpysjärvi, K., Pakanen, M., Itkonen, P., Tepponen, M., Junno, U. M., Jokinen, T., van Gils, M., Lähteenmäki, J., Kohtamäki, K., & Saranummi, N. (2021). Telemonitoring and mobile phone-based health coaching among Finnish diabetic and heart disease patients: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(6), e153.

Kaye, J., Whitley, E. A., Lund, D., Morrison, M., Teare, H., & Melham, K. (2015). Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(2), 141-146.

Khemiri, L., Askelöf, S., Berggren, U., Hermansson, U., & Jayaram-Lindström, N. (2021). Addiction Monitoring Index (AMI-21): A valid and reliable digital biomarker for clinical outcomes in alcohol use disorder. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 45(S1), 238A.

Kim, J. H., Woo, J. I., Kim, G. H., Kim, J. W., & Kim, S. S. (2019). A review of the implementation of mobile mental health in Korea. Korean Journal of Schizophrenia Research, 22(1), 1-7.

Klag, S., O'Callaghan, F., & Creed, P. (2010). The use of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: An overview and critical analysis of thirty years of research. Substance Use & Misuse, 45(11), 1890-1908.

Klonoff, D. C. (2020). Continuous glucose monitoring: Roadmap for 21st century diabetes therapy. Diabetes Care, 28(5), 1231-1239.

Koch, S. (2017). Telemedicine. In S. Koch (Ed.), Home informatics and telemedicine: Staying at the cutting edge (pp. 115-134). IOS Press.

Korea Health Industry Development Institute. (n.d.). Digital healthcare.

Kowatsch, T., Otto, L., Harperink, S., Cotti, A., & Schlieter, H. (2019). A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions. IT - Information Technology, 61(5-6), 253-263.

Lee, S. M., & Kim, J. (2021). Implementation of mobile mental health services in South Korea during COVID-19. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 102556.

Leslie, D. (2019). Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety: A guide for the responsible design and implementation of AI systems in the public sector. The Alan Turing Institute.

Livingston, J. D., Milne, T., Fang, M. L., & Amari, E. (2012). The effectiveness of interventions for reducing stigma related to substance use disorders: A systematic review. Addiction, 107(1), 39-50.

Lundin, A., Danielsson, A. K., & Andréasson, S. (2022). Digital biomarkers for alcohol use disorder: A systematic review. Addiction, 117(3), 460-472.

Luxton, D. D., McCann, R. A., Bush, N. E., Mishkind, M. C., & Reger, G. M. (2011). mHealth for mental health: Integrating smartphone technology in behavioral healthcare. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(6), 505-512.

Malinowska-Lipień, I., Micek, A., Gabryś, T., Kózka, M., Gajda, K., Gniadek, A., & Brzostek, T. (2020). Procedures for reimbursement of medical services in Poland in the context of the healthcare system. Healthcare, 8(4), 556.

Marsch, L. A. (2021). Digital health data-driven approaches to understand human behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(1), 191-196.

Marsch, L. A. (2021). Digital health technologies to deliver and support addiction treatment. Psychiatric Services, 72(2), 212-213.

Marsch, L. A., Guarino, H., Acosta, M., Aponte-Melendez, Y., Cleland, C., Grabinski, M., Brady, R., & Edwards, J. (2020). Web-based behavioral treatment for substance use disorders as a partial replacement of standard methadone maintenance treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46(1), 43-51.

Martinez-Martin, N., & Kreitmair, K. (2018). Ethical issues for direct-to-consumer digital psychotherapy apps: Addressing accountability, data protection, and consent. JMIR Mental Health, 5(2), e32.

Marzano, L., Bardill, A., Fields, B., Herd, K., Veale, D., Grey, N., & Moran, P. (2018). The application of mHealth to mental health: Opportunities and challenges. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(10), 942-948.

Meisner, A., Wusk, G., Metcalf, M., Zhu, J., Botros, P., Domin, A., Chander, A., Hasan, Y., & Chakraborty, B. (2022). Measuring alcohol consumption using smartphone data: Comparative analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 10(3), e33721.

Mertes, H. (2020). The role of digital health technologies in clinical research: Ethical considerations. In Digital Health (pp. 165-179). Academic Press.

Meskó, B., Drobni, Z., Bényei, É., Gergely, B., & Győrffy, Z. (2017). Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional healthcare. mHealth, 3, 38.

Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. (2021). Mental health policy in Korea.

Ministry of Health Poland. (2023). Digital health strategy for Poland 2021-2027. Ministry of Health.

Ministry of Health. (2021). Report on telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ministry of Health. (2022). National E-Health Strategy 2022-2027.

Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea. (n.d.). Digital healthcare standardization.

Mittelstadt, B. D., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of big data: Current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 303-341.

Mohr, D. C., Lyon, A. R., Lattie, E. G., Reddy, M., & Schueller, S. M. (2017). Accelerating digital mental health research from early design and creation to successful implementation and sustainment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(5), e153.

Monitor Polski. (2021). Resolution No. 184/2021 of the Council of Ministers of 16 December 2021 on the adoption of the National Health Program for 2021-2025. Monitor Polski, 2021, item 1144.

Moskalewicz, J., Wieczorek, Ł., & Sierosławski, J. (2020). Substance use disorders in Poland: Prevalence, treatment, and policy responses. Journal of Substance Use, 25(1), 82-87.

Müller, A., Znoj, H., & Moggi, F. (2021). How are self-efficacy and motivation related to drinking five years after residential treatment? A longitudinal multicenter study. European Addiction Research, 27(1), 28-37.

Nahum-Shani, I., Smith, S. N., Spring, B. J., Collins, L. M., Witkiewitz, K., Tewari, A., & Murphy,

Napier, A. D., Ancarno, C., Butler, B., Calabrese, J., Chater, A., Chatterjee, H., Guesnet, F., Horne, R., Jacyna, S., Jadhav, S., Macdonald, A., Neuendorf, U., Parkhurst, A., Reynolds, R., Scambler, G., Shamdasani, S., Smith, S. Z., Stougaard-Nielsen, J., Thomson, L., ... Woolf, K. (2014). Culture and health. The Lancet, 384(9954), 1607-1639.

National Centre for Addiction Prevention. (2023). Annual report on the state of addictions in Poland.

National Centre for Addiction Prevention. (n.d.). About KCPU.

National Health Fund. (2023). Annual report 2022.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2023). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (3rd ed.).

Nebeker, C., Torous, J., & Ellis, R. J. (2019). Building the case for actionable ethics in digital health research supported by artificial intelligence. BMC Medicine, 17(1), 137.

Nelson, L. A., Mulvaney, S. A., Johnson, K. B., & Osborn, C. Y. (2020). mHealth intervention elements and user characteristics determine utility: A mixed-methods analysis. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 22(10), 734-742.

NHS England. (n.d.). Digital mental health services. National Health Service England.

NIDA. (2020). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (3rd ed.). National Institute on Drug Abuse.

NIDA. (2020a). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

NIDA. (2020b). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (Third edition). National Institute on Drug Abuse.

NIDA. (2021). Words matter - Terms to use and avoid when talking about addiction. National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Niendam, T. A., Tully, L. M., Iosif, A. M., Kumar, D., Nye, K. E., Denton, J. C., Zakskorn, L. N., Fedechko, T. L., & Pierce, K. M. (2018). Enhancing early psychosis treatment using smartphone technology: A longitudinal feasibility and validity study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 96, 239-246.

NIH HEAL Initiative. (n.d.). About the initiative.

O'Loughlin, K., Neary, M., Adkins, E. C., & Schueller, S. M. (2022). Reviewing the role of mental health apps and digital technologies in pandemic and disaster preparedness. Current Psychiatry Reports, 24(5), 241-252.

Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447-453.

OECD. (2021). The digital transformation of healthcare in Poland. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Okulicz-Kozaryn, K., & Maisto, S. A. (2019). Alcohol use disorders: Screening and diagnosis. In I. Dąbrowska & P. Wierzbiński (Eds.), Addiction medicine (pp. 45-67). Springer.

OKUP. (2021). Raport o stanie lecznictwa uzależnień w Polsce [Report on the state of addiction treatment in Poland]. Ogólnopolski Kongres Uzależnień i Psychiatrii.

Oregon Health Authority. (2023). Measure 110 Oversight and Accountability Council.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Health at a glance 2021: OECD indicators.

Owens, M. D., Chen, J. A., Simpson, T. L., Timko, C., & Williams, E. C. (2023). Barriers to and facilitators of implementation of alcohol-related care in Veterans Affairs primary care: A qualitative study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 145, 108926.

PARPA. (2022). Statistics on alcohol use in Poland. State Agency for the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems.

Plos One. (2022). Digital biomarkers for mental health: Current applications, limitations, and recommendations. PLOS ONE, 17(3), e0265797.

Popovici, I., Maclean, J. C., & French, M. T. (2020). The effects of health insurance on substance use treatment and health outcomes: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(3), 889-915.

Price, W. N., & Cohen, I. G. (2019). Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 37-43.

Price, W. N., Gerke, S., & Cohen, I. G. (2023). Potential liability for physicians using artificial intelligence. JAMA, 329(1), 23-24.

PTPU. (2021). Standardy leczenia uzależnień w Polsce [Standards for addiction treatment in Poland]. Polskie

Public Health Scotland. (2024). Rapid Action Drug Alerts and Response (RADAR).

RADAR-CNS. (n.d.-a). About RADAR-CNS. Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders.

RADAR-CNS. (n.d.-b). Research. Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Central Nervous System Disorders.

Rehm, J., Shield, K. D., Gmel, G., Rehm, M. X., & Frick, U. (2019). Modeling the impact of alcohol dependence on mortality burden and the effect of available treatment interventions in the European Union. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 23(2), 89-97.

SAMHSA. (2023). Value-based care for substance use disorder services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

SAMHSA. (n.d.a). Confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

SAMHSA. (n.d.b). TIP 57: Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2019). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607-1624.

Simblett, S., Greer, B., Matcham, F., Curtis, H., Wykes, T., & Moreno-Peral, P. (2018a). Barriers to and facilitators of engagement with remote measurement technology for managing health: Systematic review and content analysis of findings. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(7), e10480.

Simblett, S., Matcham, F., Siddi, S., Bulgari, V., Barattieri di San Pietro, C., López, J. H., Ferrão, J., Polhemus, A., Haro, J. M., de Girolamo, G., Gamble, P., Eriksson, H., Hotopf, M., & Wykes, T. (2018b). Barriers to and facilitators of engagement with mHealth technology for remote measurement and management of depression: Qualitative analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(1), e8.

Sordo, L., Barrio, G., Bravo, M. J., Indave, B. I., Degenhardt, L., Wiessing, L., Ferri, M., & Pastor-Barriuso, R. (2015). Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ, 357, j1550.

State Agency for Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems. (2021). Statistical data on alcohol consumption in Poland.

Statistics Poland. (2022). Information society in Poland in 2022. Statistics Poland.

Statistics Poland. (2023). Information society in Poland in 2022.

Stern, A. D., Brönneke, J. B., Debatin, J. F., Hagen, J., Matthies, H., Patel, S., Patel, M., Semenov, I., Stegemann, L., Wallenfels, M., & Gerke, S. (2022). Advancing digital health applications: Priorities for innovation in real-world evidence generation. The Lancet Digital Health, 4(3), e200-e206.

Stormshak, E. A., DeGarmo, D., Garbacz, S. A., McIntyre, L. L., & Caruthers, A. (2020). Using motivational interviewing to improve parenting skills and prevent problem behavior during the transition to elementary school. Prevention Science, 21(3), 408-418.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Supreme Audit Office. (2020). Availability and quality of psychiatric care.

TEHIK. (n.d.a). Health and Welfare Information Systems Centre. TEHIK.

Torous, J., Chan, S. R., Yee-Marie Tan, S., Behrens, J., Mathew, I., Conrad, E. J., Hinton, L., Yellowlees, P., & Keshavan, M. (2017). Patient smartphone ownership and interest in mobile apps to monitor symptoms of mental health conditions: A survey in four geographically distinct psychiatric clinics. JMIR Mental Health, 4(1), e7.

Torous, J., Myrick, K. J., Rauseo-Ricupero, N., & Firth, J. (2020). Digital mental health and COVID-19: Using technology today to accelerate the curve on access and quality tomorrow. JMIR Mental Health, 7(3), e18848.

Torous, J., Nicholas, J., Larsen, M. E., Firth, J., & Christensen, H. (2017). Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone apps: Evidence, theory and improvements. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 21(3), 116-119.

Torous, J., Wisniewski, H., Bird, B., Carpenter, E., David, G., Elejalde, E., Fulford, D., Guimond, S., Hays, R., Henson, P., Hoffman, L., Lim, C., Menon, M., Noel, V., Pearson, J., Peterson, R., Susheela, A., Troy, H., Vaidyam, A., ... & Keshavan, M. (2020). Creating a digital health smartphone app and digital phenotyping platform for mental health and diverse healthcare needs: An interdisciplinary and collaborative approach. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 5(4), 395-408.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (n.d.). Health information privacy. HHS.gov.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024a). Biomarker Qualification Program. FDA.

UNODC. (2023). World Drug Report 2023. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Vassil, K., Solvak, M., Vinkel, P., Trechsel, A. H., & Alvarez, R. M. (2016). The diffusion of internet voting. Usage patterns of internet voting in Estonia between 2005 and 2015

Vayena, E., Blasimme, A., & Cohen, I. G. (2018). Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges. PLoS Medicine, 15(11), e1002689.

Wciórka, B., & Zatoński, W. (2022). Alcohol in Poland: Analysis of public health challenges. Journal of Health Inequalities, 8(1), 27-35.

WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2022). Digital health in the European Region: The ongoing journey to commitment and transformation. World Health Organization.

WHO. (2016). Investing in treatment for depression and anxiety leads to fourfold return. World Health Organization.

World Bank. (2017). Public-private partnerships reference guide version 3. World Bank Group.

World Health Organization Europe. (2022). Status report on alcohol consumption, harm and policy responses in Europe.

World Health Organization. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on mental, neurological and substance use services: Results of a rapid assessment.

World Health Organization. (2023). Global status report on alcohol and health 2023. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. (2023). Guidelines for the psychosocially assisted pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence.

Test list:

• Test bullet item 1
• Test bullet item 2

Test numbered list:

1. Numbered item 1
2. Numbered item 2