Smartphones for smarter delivery of mental health programs: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND Mental health problems are highly prevalent with mental health apps emerging as a potential scalable solution. However, in the current policy environment, it remains unclear to what extent clinical populations are benefiting from or at risk of suboptimal outcomes from of the mental health app market. OBJECTIVE To investigate the relationship between mental health symptoms and health app preferences, specifically examining if symptom presence correlates with mental health app usage and selection, and how symptom severity correlates with engagement patterns. METHODS A representative survey of 2000 UK working adults was conducted. Mental health apps mentioned were reviewed and categorised based on their features and the problems they target. We analysed relationships between participant characteristics and app category usage and assessed associations between participant factors and engagement metrics. RESULTS The study found that 36% of participants reported using a health app, with higher usage rates among younger and more educated individuals. We classified apps in use as General Wellness, Medical Healthcare, Physical Health, Women’s Health, Casual Mental Health and Clinical Mental Health, the distinction between the latter two categories being the presence of casual self-help vs clinically focused evidence-based features. Casual mental health apps, which accounted for 46% of total app mentions, were far more popular than clinical mental health apps (7%). A strong relationship was observed between symptom severity and the use of both casual and clinical mental health apps. Age consistently correlated with longer duration of app use across all categories. CONCLUSIONS Many individuals with mental health symptoms seek out mental health apps, but most engage with casual apps over evidence-based clinical ones. The majority of those with complex mental health needs may not be accessing the most clinically appropriate app-based interventions. Future research should establish clearer impact metrics for clinical apps beyond engagement and examine the clinical effectiveness of mental health apps more rigorously. Policy initiatives to improve app labelling and increase transparency around evidence-based features are also warranted.

BackgroundResearchers have largely turned to commercial app stores, randomized trials, and systematic reviews to make sense of the mHealth landscape. Few studies have approached understanding by collecting information from target end users. The end user perspective is critical as end user interest in and use of mHealth technologies will ultimately drive the efficacy of these tools.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to obtain information from end users of mHealth technologies to better understand the physical and mental health apps people use and for what purposes.MethodsPeople with depressive or anxious symptoms (N=176) seeking entry into a trial of mental health and well-being apps for Android devices completed online questionnaires assessing depression and anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), past and current mental health treatment-seeking behavior, overall mobile device use, and use of mobile health apps. Participants reported the physical health and mental health apps on their devices and their reasons for using them. Data were extracted from the participant self-reports and apps and app purposes were coded in order to categorize them.ResultsParticipants were largely white, middle-aged females from the Midwest region of the United States recruited via a health care organization and Web-based advertising (135 female, 41 male, mean age 38.64 years, age range 19-75 years.) Over three-quarters (137/176, 77.8%) of participants indicated having a health app on their device. The top 3 kinds of apps were exercise, fitness, and pedometers or heart rate monitoring apps (93/176, 52.8%); diet, food, or calorie counting apps (65/177, 36.9%); and mental health/wellness apps (46/177, 26.1%). The mean number of mobile physical and mental health apps on a participant’s phone was 2.15 (SD 3.195). Of 176 participants, 107 (60.8%) specifically reported the top 5 health apps that they used and their purposes. Across the 107 participants, a total of 285 apps were reported, with 139 being unique apps. The majority of these apps were free (129/139, 92.8%). Almost two-thirds of participants (67/107, 62.6%) reported using health apps at least on a daily basis.ConclusionsAmong those seeking support for their well-being via physical and mental health apps, people are using a variety of health apps. These people use health apps on a daily basis, especially free apps. The most common reason for using a health app is to track some health-related data; for mental health apps specifically, training or habit building was the most popular reason. Understanding the end user perspective is important because it allows us to build on the foundation of previously established mHealth research and may help guide future work in mHealth.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02176226; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02176226 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rGc1MGyM)

BackgroundSuboptimal understanding of depression and mental health disorders by the general population is an important contributor to the wide treatment gap in depression. Mental health literacy encompasses knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders and supports their recognition, management, and prevention. Besides knowledge improvement, psychoeducational interventions reduce symptoms of depression, enhance help-seeking behavior, and decrease stigma. Mental health apps often offer educational content, but the trustworthiness of the included information is unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to systematically evaluate adherence to clinical guidelines on depression of the information offered by mental health apps available in major commercial app stores.MethodsA systematic assessment of the educational content regarding depression in the apps available in the Apple App Store and Google Play was conducted in July 2020. A systematic search for apps published or updated since January 2019 was performed using 42matters. Apps meeting the inclusion criteria were downloaded and assessed using two smartphones: an iPhone 7 (iOS version 14.0.1) and a Sony XPERIA XZs (Android version 8.0.0). The 156-question assessment checklist comprised general characteristics of apps, appraisal of 38 educational topics and their adherence to evidence-based clinical guidelines, as well as technical aspects and quality assurance. The results were tabulated and reported as a narrative review, using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe app search retrieved 2218 apps, of which 58 were included in the analysis (Android apps: n=29, 50%; iOS apps: n=29, 50%). Of the 58 included apps, 37 (64%) apps offered educational content within a more comprehensive depression or mental health management app. Moreover, 21% (12/58) of apps provided non–evidence-based information. Furthermore, 88% (51/58) of apps included up to 20 of the educational topics, the common ones being listing the symptoms of depression (52/58, 90%) and available treatments (48/58, 83%), particularly psychotherapy. Depression-associated stigma was mentioned by 38% (22/58) of the apps, whereas suicide risk was mentioned by 71% (41/58), generally as an item in a list of symptoms. Of the 58 included apps, 44 (76%) highlighted the importance of help seeking, 29 (50%) emphasized the importance of involving the user’s support network. In addition, 52% (30/58) of apps referenced their content, and 17% (10/58) included advertisements.ConclusionsInformation in mental health and depression apps is often brief and incomplete, with 1 in 5 apps providing non–evidence-based information. Given the unmet needs and stigma associated with the disease, it is imperative that apps seize the opportunity to offer quality, evidence-based education or point the users to relevant resources. A multistakeholder consensus on a more stringent development and publication process for mental health apps is essential.

BackgroundA large number of health apps are available directly to consumers through app marketplaces. Little information is known, however, about how consumers search for these apps and which factors influence their uptake, adoption, and long-term use.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to understand what people look for when they search for health apps and the aspects and features of those apps that consumers find appealing.MethodsParticipants were recruited from Northwestern University’s Center for Behavioral Intervention Technologies’ research registry of individuals with mental health needs. Most participants (n=811) completed a survey asking about their use and interest in health and mental health apps. Local participants were also invited to participate in focus groups. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 30 participants that collected more detailed information about their use and interest in health and mental health apps.ResultsSurvey participants commonly found health apps through social media (45.1%, 366/811), personal searches (42.7%, 346/811), or word of mouth (36.9%, 299/811), as opposed to professional sources such as medical providers (24.6%, 200/811). From the focus groups, common themes related to uptake and use of health apps included the importance of personal use before adoption, specific features that users found desirable, and trusted sources either developing or promoting the apps.ConclusionsAs the number of mental health and health apps continue to increase, it is imperative to better understand the factors that impact people’s adoption and use of such technologies. Our findings indicated that a number of factors—ease of use, aesthetics, and individual experience—drove adoption and use and highlighted areas of focus for app developers and disseminators.

BackgroundThe rapidly expanding digital health landscape offers innovative opportunities for improving health care delivery and patient outcomes; however, regulatory and clinical frameworks for evaluating their key features, effectiveness, and outcomes are lacking. Cardiovascular and mental health apps represent 2 prominent categories within this space. While mental health apps have been extensively studied, limited research exists on the quality and effectiveness of cardiovascular care apps. Despite their potential, both categories of apps face criticism for a lack of clinical evidence, insufficient privacy safeguards, and underuse of smartphone-specific features alluding to larger shortcomings in the field.ObjectiveThis study extends the use of the MINDApps framework to compare the quality of cardiovascular and mental health apps framework to compare the quality of cardiovascular and mental health apps with regard to data security, data collection, and evidence-based support to identify strengths, limitations, and broader shortcomings across these domains in the digital health landscape.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, querying for cardiovascular care apps. Apps were included if they were updated within the past 90 days, available in English, and did not require a health care provider’s referral. Cardiovascular care apps were matched to mental health apps by platform compatibility and cost. Apps were evaluated using the M-Health Index & Navigation Database (MIND; MINDApps), a comprehensive tool based on the American Psychiatric Association’s app evaluation model. The framework includes 105 objective questions across 6 categories of quality, including privacy, clinical foundation, and engagement. Statistical differences between the 2 groups were assessed using two-proportion Z-tests.ResultsIn total, 48 cardiovascular care apps and 48 matched mental health apps were analyzed. The majority of apps in both categories included a privacy policy; yet, the majority in both samples shared user data with third-party companies. Evidence for effectiveness was limited, with only 2 (4%) cardiovascular care apps and 5 (10%) mental health apps meeting this criterion. Cardiovascular care apps were significantly more likely to be used in external devices such as smartphone-based electrocardiograms and blood pressure monitors.ConclusionsBoth categories lack robust clinical foundations and face substantial privacy challenges. Cardiovascular apps have the potential to revolutionize patient monitoring; yet, their limited evidence base and privacy concerns highlight opportunities for improvement. Findings demonstrate the broader applicability of the MINDApps framework in evaluating apps across medical fields and stress the significant shortcomings in the app marketplace for cardiovascular and mental health. Future work should prioritize evidence-based app development, privacy safeguards, and the integration of innovative smartphone functionalities to ensure that health apps are safe and effective for patient use.

Mental health mobile applications (apps) have the potential to expand the provision of mental health and wellness services to underserved populations. There is a lack of guidance on how to choose wisely from the thousands of mental health apps without clear evidence of safety, efficacy, and consumer protections. We propose the Framework to Assist Stakeholders in Technology Evaluation for Recovery (FASTER) to Mental Health and Wellness to support agencies and individuals working in mental health, as well as users of mental health apps, in making informed decisions recommending the use of, or using mental health and wellness apps. The framework was developed through a systematic process including a review of existing frameworks and the literature, interviews with key informants, public stakeholder feedback, and iterative application and refinement of the framework to 45 apps. It comprises three sections: Section 1. Risks and Mitigation Strategies, assesses the integrity and risk profile of the app; Section 2. Function, focuses on descriptive aspects related to accessibility, costs, developer credibility, evidence and clinical foundation, privacy/security, usability, functions for remote monitoring of the user, access to crisis services, and artificial intelligence (AI); and Section 3. Mental Health App Features focuses on specific mental health app features, such as journaling and mood tracking. The framework facilitates an assessment of the level of risk posed by the app against the evidence on the effectiveness of the app and its safety features, recognizing that given vast variations in health apps, a ‘one size fits all’ approach is likely to be insufficient. Future application, testing, and refinements may be required to determine the framework’s suitability and reliability across multiple mental health conditions.

BackgroundThere is a robust market for mobile health (mHealth) apps focused on self-guided interventions to address a high prevalence of mental health disorders and behavioral health needs in the general population. Disseminating mental health interventions via mHealth technologies may help overcome barriers in access to care and has broad consumer appeal. However, development and testing of mental health apps in formal research settings are limited and far outpaced by everyday consumer use. In addition to prioritizing efficacy and effectiveness testing, researchers should examine and test app design elements that impact the user experience, increase engagement, and lead to sustained use over time.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the objective and subjective quality of apps that are successful across both research and consumer sectors, and the relationships between objective app quality, subjective user ratings, and evidence-based behavior change techniques. This will help inform user-centered design considerations for mHealth researchers to maximize design elements and features associated with consumer appeal, engagement, and sustainability.MethodsWe conducted a user-centered design analysis of popular consumer apps with scientific backing utilizing the well-validated Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). Popular consumer apps with research support were identified via a systematic search of the App Store iOS (Apple Inc) and Google Play (Google LLC) and literature review. We evaluated the quality metrics of 19 mental health apps along 4 MARS subscales, namely, Engagement, Functionality, Aesthetics, and Information Quality. MARS total and subscale scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing better quality. We then extracted user ratings from app download platforms and coded apps for evidence-based treatment components. We calculated Pearson correlation coefficients to identify associations between MARS scores, App Store iOS/Google Play consumer ratings, and number of evidence-based treatment components.ResultsThe mean MARS score was 3.52 (SD 0.71), consumer rating was 4.22 (SD 0.54), and number of evidence-based treatment components was 2.32 (SD 1.42). Consumer ratings were significantly correlated with the MARS Functionality subscale (r=0.74, P<.001), Aesthetics subscale (r=0.70, P<.01), and total score (r=0.58, P=.01). Number of evidence-based intervention components was not associated with MARS scores (r=0.085, P=.73) or consumer ratings (r=–0.329, P=.16).ConclusionsIn our analysis of popular research-supported consumer apps, objective app quality and subjective consumer ratings were generally high. App functionality and aesthetics were highly consistent with consumer appeal, whereas evidence-based components were not. In addition to designing treatments that work, we recommend that researchers prioritize aspects of app design that impact the user experience for engagement and sustainability (eg, ease of use, navigation, visual appeal). This will help translate evidence-based interventions to the competitive consumer app market, thus bridging the gap between research development and real-world implementation.

Smartphone apps have the potential to address some of the current issues facing service provision for young people's mental health by improving the scalability of evidence-based mental health interventions. However, very few apps have been successfully implemented, and consensus on implementation measurement is lacking. This review aims to determine the proportion of evidence-based mental health and well-being apps that have been successfully adopted and sustained in real-world settings. A secondary aim is to establish if key implementation determinants such as coproduction, acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and engagement contribute toward successful implementation and longevity. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, an electronic search of 5 databases in 2021 yielded 18,660 results. After full-text screening, 34 articles met the full eligibility criteria, providing data on 29 smartphone apps studied with individuals aged 15 to 25 years. Of 34 studies, only 10 (29%) studies were identified that were evaluating the effectiveness of 8 existing, commercially available mental health apps, and the remaining 24 (71%) studies reported the development and evaluation of 21 newly developed apps, of which 43% (9/21) were available, commercially or otherwise (eg, in mental health services), at the time of enquiry. Most studies addressed some implementation components including adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and engagement. Factors including high cost, funding constraints, and lengthy research processes impeded implementation. Without addressing common implementation drivers, there is considerable redundancy in the translation of mobile mental health research findings into practice. Studies should embed implementation strategies from the outset of the planned research, build collaborations with partners already working in the field (academic and commercial) to capitalize on existing interventions and platforms, and modify and evaluate them for local contexts or target problems and populations. PROSPERO CRD42021224365; https://tinyurl.com/4umpn85f.

BackgroundThere are around 20,000 mental health apps available in app stores. The Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Apps (ORCHA), a United Kingdom digital health compliance company, has assessed a number of digital mental health apps with regard to their quality, professional and clinical assurance, data privacy, and user experience. This study analyzes the data that were collected by ORCHA when they assessed mental health apps.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the characteristics of mental health apps regarding their quality, target users, features, underpinning evidence, and data privacy.MethodsA dataset comprising ORCHA Baseline Review assessments of over 2000 digital health apps, including 436 mental health apps, was used. This study uses exploratory data analysis to gain insight into the quality and characteristics of mental health apps. Methods such as descriptive and inferential statistics, k-modes clustering, and association rule mining were used to explore the quality of mental health apps as well as reveal insights into the different cost types, target users, app features, data types, and evidence of app content.ResultsInformation provision, data capture, and data sharing were the most common features within the 436 mental health apps. The examined apps primarily targeted the following groups: adults (n=229, 52.5%), everyone (n=184, 42.2%), and teens (n=135, 31%). The cost of apps has not been linked to the quality of mental health apps, although paid apps or apps with in-app purchases may include additional services. Indicated user acceptance or benefit is the most common type of evidence provided by these mental health apps. A total of 241 (55.3%) apps included a qualified professional in app development, and 251 (57.6%) apps provided evidence within the app that the developer validated any guidance with relevant reliable information sources or references. Usage data and email were the most commonly collected data types. Association rule mining showed that email, IP address, name, and usage data are often co-collected by the same apps. K-modes cluster analysis showed that mental health apps can be categorized into 2 clusters, where one cluster of apps (n=182, 41.7%) collected more data than apps in the other cluster.ConclusionsMental health apps are commonly targeted for everyone to use, but many apps are targeted toward teens or adults. Our study suggests that many publicly available mental health apps did not take the precautions (such as the involvement of appropriate health professionals, literature references, or conducting tests) to ensure that their content is valid and research based. Greater effort on behalf of mental health app developers is needed to ensure that the public is provided with high-quality apps. Moreover, our study indicates that the mental health apps that collect more data tend to score better on the ORCHA Baseline Review assessment.

Background: There are currently more than 350,000 health apps in the Android and Apple app stores. The quality of a health app can be assessed by the Organization for the Review of Care and Health Apps (ORCHA), a United Kingdom based company that specialises in the quality assessment of health apps. The ORCHA baseline assessment (OBR) assess three aspects of a health app: 1) professional/clinical assurance (PCA), 2) user experience (UX) and 3) data privacy (DP). These three sections each provide a score but also contribute to an overall ORCHA score from 0 to 100 (where a score of 100 is the highest quality score and a score above 65 is desirable). Objective: To assess if there are any possible disparities in the quality of physical and mental health apps targeting four different age groups: children, teens, adults, and older people. Methods: A secondary dataset was used for this study, which included a total of 604 health apps that were previously assessed for quality using OBR. The 604 health apps comprise of 254 mental and 350 physical health apps. R language and R studio were used to analyse this data. Median and interquartile ranges (IQR) were used to assess the spread of app assessment scores achieved for PCA, UX and DP for each of the considered age groups. Unpaired two sample Wilcoxon tests were used to compare the quality assessment scores of mental and physical health apps across each age group. Bonferroni adjusted p-value was calculated for multiple tests. Results: Only physical health apps for children and older people managed to achieve a median ORCHA score above the acceptable threshold of 65. The median ORCHA score for physical health apps for teens and adults was below 65. The median ORCHA score for mental health apps for all four age groups was below 65. Physical health apps scored better than mental health apps for children, adults, and older people age group; however, this was only statistically significant for older people (p-value =.002). The PCA scores for mental health apps for older people (m=39.7, IQR=33.2) and physical health apps for teens (m=39.4, IQR=42.7) were lower than other age groups. Conclusion: This study indicates that, for older people, overall quality of physical health apps is higher when compared to mental health apps. Moreover, the professional/clinical assurance of both physical and mental health apps could be improved; specifically, mental health apps for older people and physical health apps for teens. To make adjunctive therapy regarding mental health more suitable for older people, improvements to health app quality should be made. This will allow for better integrated care as more people adopt the usage of health apps. A limitation of this analysis is that we are using a secondary dataset to study the quality of apps that were assessed by ORCHA and were included in this dataset. A similar study could be done using a random selection of apps.

BackgroundAmong the general public, there appears to be a growing need and interest in receiving digital mental health and well-being support. In response to this, mental health apps (MHapps) are becoming available for monitoring, managing, and promoting positive mental health and well-being. Thus far, evidence supports favorable outcomes when users engage with MHapps, yet there is a relative paucity of reviews on apps that support positive mental health and well-being.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review the available research on MHapps that promote emotion regulation, positive mental health, and well-being in the general population aged 18-45 years. More specifically, the review aimed at providing a systematic description of the theoretical background and features of MHapps while evaluating any potential effectiveness.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of key databases, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), was performed until January 2021. Studies were included if they described standalone mental health and well-being apps for adults without a formal mental health diagnosis. The quality of all studies was assessed against the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. In addition, the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB-2) was used to assess randomized control trials (RCTs). Data were extracted using a modified extraction form from the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were then undertaken to address the review aims.ResultsIn total, 3156 abstracts were identified. Of these, 52 publications describing 48 MHapps met the inclusion criteria. Together, the studies evaluated interventions across 15 countries. Thirty-nine RCTs were identified suggesting some support for the role of individual MHapps in improving and promoting mental health and well-being. Regarding the pooled effect, MHapps, when compared to controls, showed a small effect for reducing mental health symptoms (k=19, Hedges g=–0.24, 95% CI –0.34 to –0.14; P<.001) and improving well-being (k=13, g=0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29, P=.004), and a medium effect for emotion regulation (k=6, g=0.49, 95% CI 0.23-0.74, P<.001). There is also a wide knowledge base of creative and innovative ways to engage users in techniques such as mood monitoring and guided exercises. Studies were generally assessed to contribute unclear or a high risk of bias, or to be of medium to low methodological quality.ConclusionsThe emerging evidence for MHapps that promote positive mental health and well-being suggests promising outcomes. Despite a wide range of MHapps, few apps specifically promote emotion regulation. However, our findings may position emotion regulation as an important mechanism for inclusion in future MHapps. A fair proportion of the included studies were pilot or feasibility trials (k=17, 33%), and full-scale RCTs reported high attrition rates and nondiverse samples. Given the number and pace at which MHapps are being released, further robust research is warranted to inform the development and testing of evidence-based programs.

Mental health apps (MHAs) are increasingly popular in India due to rising mental health awareness and app accessibility. Despite their benefits, like mood tracking, sleep tools and virtual therapy, MHAs lack regulatory oversight. India's framework, including the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and Medical Device Rules 2017, does not cover standalone health apps, raising concerns about data privacy and accuracy. Establishing a centralised regulatory body with guidelines for MHAs is essential for user safety and efficacy. This paper examines the current regulatory landscape, compares international approaches and proposes a tiered regulatory framework to foster responsible innovation while safeguarding user interests in digital mental health services.

Opinion statementThere are over 10,000 mental health and wellness apps on the market. Apps offer the opportunity to increase access to mental health care. However, with many apps to choose from and an app landscape that is largely unregulated, it can be difficult to incorporate this technology into clinical practice. The first step towards achieving this goal is to identify clinically relevant and appropriate apps. The purpose of this review is to discuss app evaluation, raise awareness of considerations involved in implementing mental health apps into clinical care, and provide an example of how apps can be used effectively in the clinical space. We discuss the current regulatory environment for health apps, how to evaluate apps, and implement them into clinical practice. We also showcase a digital clinic where apps are integrated into the clinical workflow and discuss barriers to app implementation. Mental health apps have the potential to increase access to care if they are clinically effective, easy to use, and protect patient privacy. Learning how to find, evaluate, and implement quality apps into practice is key in harnessing this technology for the benefit of patients.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of mobile apps for monitoring and management of mental health symptoms or disorders

“As a Black woman with a chronic mental health illness, racism and lack of cultural competency in health care scares me. Sometimes I am faced with huge barriers when trying to get the support that I need, and I am tired of it…”, tweeted Jasmin Pierre, an American mental health advocate and app developer in early February 2022. Her sentiments are echoed by many Black Americans, according to recent data. Results from the 2020 Survey On Race And Health, a nationally representative survey of US adults by American non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation and digital platform The Undefeated, revealed that one in five Black adults said that they had personally experienced race-based discrimination in the past year.