Cited by 64Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and Access

The need for a new generation of digital mental health tools to support more accessible, effective and equitable care

Open access
Torous, John, Myrick, Keris, Aguilera, Adrian·2023·World Psychiatry

Abstract

The potential of digital mental health to increase access to and quality of care has gained traction with the rise of smartphones and accelerated with the spread of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. With at least 80% of the global population now owning a device able to capture digital phenotyping signals, analyze data, and run mental health apps, excitement about the imminent arrival of personalized, preventive and precision psychiatry is understandable. Yet, by nearly all outcome metrics, digital mental health is not transforming care1. Whether measured in global trends of deaths from suicide or rising rates of depression, especially among young­er people who are often the first to use digital tools, it is clear that the proclaimed paradigm shift is paused2. The very people who require mental health care the most, underserved populations, have not experienced a rise in access or boon in outcomes, and the burden of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries remains as high as ever. Billions of dollars of resources have been poured into health apps, algorithms and devices with the assumption that later, with a simple step, all people would "cross over" or "trickle across" the digital divide and catch up. However, a variety of digital disparities are now emerging, which are troubling but perhaps also addressable. A focus on supporting digital literacy, improving privacy/evidence for these tools, and creating clinical connections each provides tangible steps for more equitable and impactful digital mental health. As smartphone penetration has accelerated in all countries around the world, blaming the digital divide on a lack of access to devices has become untenable. This narrative now covers lack of Internet access, especially in rural areas. While this is indeed a barrier still requiring work today3, it is one that can and will probably be quickly addressed. But, behind access to the Internet, lies a more challenging first inequity – that concerning digital self-determination. Just as self-determination theory highlights the need for autonomy, competence and connection for psychological thriving, the same is necessary for any digital mental health tools, be they anything from smartphone apps to virtual reality headsets. While the data remain aloof as the topic has not yet been well explored, digital self-determination and the related sub-component of digital literacy remain underdeveloped in populations with the greatest mental health needs4. People may have a smartphone today, but there has not been a concomitant investment in people themselves to ensure that they can equitably engage and benefit from digital mental health tools. Evidence that older adults may find digital health tools more challenging, or that people from underserved backgrounds may engage less certainly, reflects issues with flawed designs of technology and a lack of community engagement, but may also reflect deeper inequities around educational opportunities that today's digital mental health approaches have not yet addressed5. Digital self-determination also means that people may say "no" to using technology for their mental health, and we should honor their choices and voices. A leading reason why people often say "no" is that today digital mental health tools have privacy practices compounded by limited evidence of efficacy. One of the clearest examples of inequity is the lack of privacy offered by most mental health apps. A report by the Mozilla Foundation in March 2022 highlighted ongoing privacy risks among well-known mental health apps. Around the same time in 2022, the suicide hotline service Crisis Textline agreed to stop sharing users' text messages with an outside company after public outcry. The finding that less than 15% of people in the US and UK are willing to share anonymized personal health information with a company for the purposes of improving health care provides a tangible target for improvement6. The lack of trust engendered in health care technology must be reversed, and this can occur with better practices by app developers, demands for privacy by patients and clinicians, and regulation from governments. Without trust, there is no health or mental health, and it is understandable that people do not want their most private and vulnerable information shared in today's digital mental health ecosystem. Furthermore, despite bold claims of efficacy on their websites, most studies in the mental health field do not recruit or sample from the patients with the highest unmet health care needs7. This clear lack of representativeness may explain why many digital technologies fail to offer impressive results in the real world when deployed outside clinical trial conditions. Digital mental health tools need not be perceived as second-class treatments to be utilized when a clinician is not available, but should strive for excellence that exceeds current standards of care. A more subtle but equally insidious bias

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wps.21058

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Torous J, Bucci S, Bell IH et al. World Psychiatry 2021;20:318-35.
  2. Stein DJ, Shoptaw SJ, Vigo DV et al. World Psychiatry 2022;21:393-414.
  3. Hoffman L, Wisniewski H, Hays R et al. J Psychiatr Pract 2020;26:80.
  4. Schueller SM, Hunter JF, Figueroa C et al. Curr Treat Options Psychiatry 2019;6: 243-55.
  5. Ghafur S, Van Dael J, Leis M et al. Lancet Digit Health 2020;2:e444-6.
  6. Safavi K, Mathews SC, Bates DW et al. Health Aff 2019;38:115-23.
  7. Barker W, Johnson C. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021;28:2379-84.
  8. Gordon WJ, Patel V, Thornhill W et al JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2022408. DOI:10.1002/wps.21058

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Torous, J., Myrick, K., & Aguilera, A.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Policy Liaison, US National Association of Peer Supporters
  • Director, Digital Health Equity and Access Lab University of California Berkeley CA USA
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-01-14
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
1-2
ISSN
  • 1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
  • 2051-5545
OpenAlex
W4316143381
Cited by
64
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 5
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
digital mental health, digital divide, digital self-determination, digital literacy, mental health equity, underserved populations, low- and middle-income countries, self-determination theory, mental health apps, telemedicine, internet access, older adults, depression, precision psychiatry, digital health policy, mental health professionals, privacy and data security

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review