Cited by 17Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

E-mental health applications for depression: an evidence-based ethical analysis

Rubeis, Giovanni·2021·European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract

E-mental health applications (apps) are an increasingly important factor for the treatment of depression. To assess the risks and benefits for patients, an in-depth ethical analysis is necessary. The objective of this paper is to determine the ethical implications of app-based treatment for depression. An evidence-based ethical analysis was conducted. The material was meta-reviews and randomized control studies (RCTs) on app-based treatment. Based on the empirical data, an ethical analysis was conducted using the 3-ACES-approach by Thornicroft and Tansella. Apps may empower autonomy, offer an uninterrupted series of contacts over a period of time, show evidence-based benefits for patients with subclinical and mild-to-moderate-symptoms, are easily accessible, may be used for coordinating information and services within an episode of care, and are on the whole cost-effective. Their risks are that they are not suitable for the whole range of severity of mental illnesses and patient characteristics, show severe deficits in the data privacy policy, and a big variability in quality standards. The use of apps in depression treatment can be beneficial for patients as long as (1) the usefulness of an app-based treatment is assessed for each individual patient, (2) apps are chosen according to symptom severity as well as characteristics like the patient's level of self-reliance, their e-literacy, and their openness vis-à-vis apps, (3) manufacturers improve their privacy policies and the quality of apps.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00406-019-01093-y

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rubeis, G.
Affiliations
Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Rubeis, Giovanni
Venue
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
Published
2020-01-01
Volume
271
Issue
3
Pages
549-555
ISSN
  • 0003-9373 (ISSN-L)
  • 0940-1334
  • 1433-8491
OpenAlex
W2998179725
Cited by
17
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
depression treatment, digital mental health, ethical implications, data privacy, symptom severity, patient autonomy, e-literacy, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Internet-Based Intervention, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Mental Health Services, Psychotherapy, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Telemedicine, Ethical Analysis, Evidence-Based Practice, Mobile Applications

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