CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and Access

Mobile App Tools for Identifying and Managing Mental Health Disorders in Primary Care

Open access
Magee, Joshua C., Adut, Sarah, Brazill, Kevin, Warnick, Stephen·2018·Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry
DOI 10.1007/s40501-018-0154-0PMC PMC6214367
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose of review Mental health apps are intriguing yet challenging tools for addressing barriers to treatment in primary care. In the current review, we seek to assist primary care professionals with evaluating and integrating mental health apps into practice. We briefly summarize two leading frameworks for evaluating mental health apps and conduct a systematic review of mental health apps across a variety of areas commonly encountered in primary care. Recent findings Existing frameworks can guide professionals and patients through the process of identifying apps and evaluating dimensions such as privacy and security, credibility, and user experience. For specific apps, several problem areas appear to have relatively more scientific evaluation in the current app landscape, including PTSD, smoking, and alcohol use. Other areas such as eating disorders not only lack evaluation, but contain a significant subset of apps providing potentially harmful advice. Summary Overall, individuals seeking mental health apps will likely encounter strengths such as symptom tracking and psychoeducational components, while encountering common weaknesses such as insufficient privacy settings and little integration of empirically-supported techniques. While mental health apps may have more promise than ever, significant barriers to finding functional, usable, effective apps remain for health professionals and patients alike.

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 · 10.1007/s40501-018-0154-0

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Three remaining studies applied existing frameworks to evaluate mHealth applications, including ORCHA-24, APA App Evaluation Model and PsyberGuide 10, and the GeoHealth PIA framework.

    “Three remaining studies applied existing frameworks to evaluate mHealth applications, which included ''The Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Applications 24 Question Assessment (ORCHA-24) framework'' [88], IEEEAccess American Psychiatric Association (APA) App Evaluation Model and PsyberGuide 10 [5], and the GeoHealth Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) framework [90].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

    The ‘Frameworks for Evaluating Mental Health Apps’ section identifies and explains the APA App Evaluation Model and PsyberGuide, supporting the frameworks named alongside this citation. But the ‘Summary of Current Findings’ says the paper overviewed those frameworks and separately assessed the app landscape; it does not say the authors applied the frameworks to evaluate apps. ORCHA-24 and GeoHealth PIA have separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many authors state that findings should not be seen as a replacement for more in-depth assessments, such as those using NHS digital assessment criteria, but rather as an adjunct.

    “Many authors state that ndings should not be seen as a replacement for more in-depth assessments, such as those using NHS digital assessment criteria, but rather as an adjunct [5], [87], [88].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

    In Existing Reviews Evaluating Mental Health Apps (page unavailable), the paper describes apps for older adults as “assessment aids,” and its Clinical Implications section recommends using apps collaboratively with clinicians. That supports an adjunct role, but our copy does not say that findings should not replace in-depth assessments or discuss NHS digital assessment criteria. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some limitations concern the generalisability of findings due to specific healthcare settings and problem areas, patient populations, or categories of apps reviewed.

    “Some limitations concern the generalisability of ndings, which could be due to speci c healthcare settings and problem areas [5], patient populations included in the studies [86], or the categories of apps reviewed [88].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

  • For clinicians and healthcare professionals, the objective is to assist them with evaluating and integrating mental health apps into practice.

    “For clinicians and healthcare professionals: to establish a sustainable curated app repository, based on explicit quality and risk criteria [89], to assist them with evaluating and integrating mental health apps into practice [5], and on what apps to recommend [88].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

  • The final type of framework consists of checklists or sets of evaluation criteria or principles.

    “The nal type of framework consists of checklists or sets of evaluation criteria or principles [5], [87] [90].”

    From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

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: 54

  1. [3]Loeb DF, Bayliss EA, Binswanger IA, Candrian C, DeGruy FV. Primary care physician perceptions on caring for complex patients with medical and mental illness. J Gen Intern Med. 2012: 27(8): 945– 52. 22370766 PMC3403152
  2. [4]Mickus M, Colenda CC, Hogan AJ. Knowledge of mental health benefits and preferences for type of mental health providers among the general public. Psychiatr Serv. 2000: 51(2): 199– 202. 10655003
  3. [5]Yaman H, Yavuz E, Er A, Vural R, Albayrak Y, Yardimci A, The use of mobile smart devices and medical apps in the family practice setting. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016: 22(2): 290– 6. 26552716
  4. [8]Ramirez V, Johnson E, Gonzalez C, Ramirez V, Rubino B, Rossetti G. Assessing the use of mobile health technology by patients: An observational study in primary care clinics. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016: 4(2): e41. 27095507 PMC4858592
  5. [11]Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Monahan PO, Lowe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: Prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med. 2007: 146: 317– 25. 17339617
  6. [15]Alyami M, Giri B, Alyami H, Sundram F. Social anxiety apps: A systematic review and assessment of app descriptors across mobile store platforms. Evid Based Ment Health. 2017: 20(3): 65– 70. 28666986 PMC10688550
  7. [16]Van Singer M, Chatton A, Khazaal Y. Quality of smartphone apps related to panic disorder. Front Psychiatry. 2015: 6: 96. 26236242 PMC4500864
  8. [17]Bush NE, Skopp N, Smolenski D, Crumpton R, Fairall J. Behavioral screening measures delivered with a smartphone app: Psychometric properties and user preference. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013: 201(11): 991– 5. 24177488
  9. [18]Rodriguez-Paras C, Tippey K, Brown E, Sasangohar F, Creech S, Kum H-C, Posttraumatic stress disorder and mobile health: App investigation and scoping literature review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2017: 5(10): e156. 29074470 PMC5680516
  10. [19]Fann JR, Berry DL, Wolpin S, Austin-Seymour M, Bush N, Halpenny B, Depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administered on a touch screen computer. Psychooncology. 2009: 18(1): 14– 22. 18457335 PMC2610244
  11. [21]Callan JA, Wright J, Siegle GJ, Howland RH, Kepler BB. Use of computer and mobile technologies in the treatment of depression. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2017: 31(3): 311– 8. 28499574
  12. [26]Aguirre RTP, McCoy MK, Roan M. Development guidelines from a study of suicide prevention mobile applications (apps). J Technol Hum Serv. 2013: 31(3): 269– 93.
  13. Luxton DD, June JD, Chalker SA. Mobile health technologies for suicide prevention: Feature review and recommendations for use in clinical care. Curr Treat Options Psychiatry. 2015: 2(4): 349– 62. Clinically-oriented review of mobile health in suicide prevention, emphasis on future technological capabilities.
  14. [28]de la Torre I, Castillo G, Arambarri J, López-Coronado M, Franco MA. Mobile apps for suicide prevention: Review of virtual stores and literature. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2017: 5(10): e130. 29017992 PMC5654733
  15. [30]Nicholas J, Larsen ME, Proudfoot J, Christensen H. Mobile apps for bipolar disorder: A systematic review of features and content quality. J Med Internet Res. 2015: 17(8): e198. 26283290 PMC4642376
  16. [33]Wenze SJ, Armey MF, Miller IW. Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile intervention to improve treatment adherence in bipolar disorder: A pilot study. Behav Modif. 2014: 38(4): 497– 515. 24402464 PMC4087107
  17. [38]Hoeppner BB, Schick MR, Kelly LM, Hoeppner SS, Bergman B, Kelly JF. There is an app for that – Or is there? A content analysis of publicly available smartphone apps for managing alcohol use. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017: 82: 67– 73. 29021117
  18. [39]Cohn AM, Hunter-Reel D, Hagman BT, Mitchell J. Promoting behavior change from alcohol use through mobile technology: The future of ecological momentary assessment. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011: 35(12): 2209– 15. 21689119 PMC3221771
  19. [40]Savic M, Best D, Rodda S, Lubman DI. Exploring the focus and experiences of smartphone applications for addiction recovery. J Addict Dis. 2013: 32(3): 310– 9. 24074196
  20. [41]Weaver ER, Horyniak DR, Jenkinson R, Dietze P, Lim MSC. Let’s get wasted! and other apps: Characteristics, acceptability, and use of alcohol-related smartphone applications. J Med Internet Res. 2013: 15(6): e9. 25100681 PMC4114432
  21. [42]Choo CC, Burton AAD. Mobile Phone apps for behavioral interventions for at-risk drinkers in Australia: Literature review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018: 6(2): e18. 29439946 PMC5829458
  22. [43]Quanbeck A, Chih M-Y, Isham A, Johnson R, Gustafson D. Mobile delivery of treatment for alcohol use disorders. Alcohol Res. 2014: 36(1): 111– 22. 26259005 PMC4432850
  23. [44]Milward J, Khadjesari Z, Fincham-Campbell S, Deluca P, Watson R, Drummond C. User preferences for content, features, and style for an app to reduce harmful drinking in young adults: Analysis of user feedback in app stores and focus group interviews. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016: 4(2): e47. 27220371 PMC4897297
  24. [45]Kazemi DM, Borsari B, Levine MJ, Li S, Lamberson KA, Matta LA. A systematic review of the mHealth interventions to prevent alcohol and substance abuse. J Health Commun. 2017: 22(5): 413– 32. 28394729 PMC5616128
  25. [47]Berman AH, Gajecki M, Sinadinovic K, Andersson C. Mobile interventions targeting risky drinking among university students: A review. Curr Addict Reports. 2016: 3(2): 166– 74. PMC4856712 27226948
  26. [48]O’Rourke L, Humphris G, Baldacchino A. Electronic communication based interventions for hazardous young drinkers: A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016: 68: 880– 90. 27453570
  27. [49]Meredith SE, Alessi SM, Petry NM. Smartphone applications to reduce alcohol consumption and help patients with alcohol use disorder: A state-of-the-art review. Adv Heal Care Technol. 2015: 1: 47– 54. PMC4963021 27478863
  28. [50]Bennett ME, Toffey K, Dickerson F, Himelhoch S, Katsafanas E, Savage CLG. A review of android apps for smoking cessation. J Smok Cessat. 2015: 10(2): 106– 15.
  29. [51]Regmi K, Kassim N, Ahmad N, Tuah NA. Effectiveness of mobile apps for smoking cessation: A review. Tob Prev Cessat. 2017: 3(April): 12. PMC7232804 32432186
  30. [53]Thornton L, Quinn C, Birrell L, Guillaumier A, Shaw B, Forbes E, Free smoking cessation mobile apps available in Australia: A quality review and content analysis. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017: 41(6): 625– 30. 28749591
  31. Haskins BL, Lesperance D, Gibbons P, Boudreaux ED. A systematic review of smartphone applications for smoking cessation. Transl Behav Med. 2017: 7(2): 292– 9. 28527027 PMC5526818 Describes specific smoking cessation apps with discussion of features and evidence.
  32. [55]Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. 2018 http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/guidelines-recommendations/tobacco/index.html 21923316
  33. [56]Hoeppner BB, Hoeppner SS, Seaboyer L, Schick MR, Wu GWY, Bergman BG, How smart are smartphone apps for smoking cessation? A content analysis. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016: 18(5): 1025– 31. 26045249 PMC5942604
  34. [57]Abroms LC, Lee Westmaas J, Bontemps-Jones J, Ramani R, Mellerson J. A content analysis of popular smartphone apps for smoking cessation. Am J Prev Med. 2013: 45(6): 732– 6. 24237915 PMC3836190
  35. [58]Abroms LC, Padmanabhan N, Thaweethai L, Phillips T. iPhone apps for smoking cessation: A content analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2011: 40(3): 279– 85. 21335258 PMC3395318
  36. [59]Ferron JC, Brunette MF, Geiger P, Marsch LA, Adachi-Mejia AM, Bartels SJ. Mobile phone apps for smoking cessation: Quality and usability among smokers With psychosis. JMIR Hum Factors. 2017: 4(1): e7. 28258047 PMC5357319
  37. [60]Heminger C, Schindler-Ruwisch J, Lorien Abroms L. Smoking cessation support for pregnant women: role of mobile technology. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2016: 7: 15– 26. 27110146 PMC4835136
  38. [61]Coulon SM, Monroe CM, West DS. A systematic, multi-domain review of mobile smartphone apps for evidence-based stress management. Am J Prev Med. 2016: 51(1): 95– 105. 26993534
  39. [66]De La Vega R, Miró J. mHealth: A strategic field without a solid scientific soul. A systematic review of pain-related apps. PLoS One. 2014: 9(7): e101312. 24999983 PMC4085095
  40. [67]Bhattarai P, Newton-John T, Phillips JL. Quality and usability of arthritic pain self-management apps for older adults: A systematic review. Pain Med. 2017: 19: 471– 84. 28541464
  41. [68]Machado GC, Pinheiro MB, Lee H, Ahmed OH, Hendrick P, Williams C, Smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain: A systematic review. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016: 30(6): 1098– 109. 29103552
  42. [70]Moussa Y, Mahdanian AA, Yu C, Segal M, Looper KJ, Vahia IV, Mobile health technology in late-life mental illness: A focused literature review. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017: 25(8): 865– 72. 28495467
  43. [71]Dubad M, Winsper C, Meyer C, Livanou M, Marwaha S. A systematic review of the psychometric properties, usability and clinical impacts of mobile mood-monitoring applications in young people. Psychol Med. 2018: 48(2): 208– 28. 28641609
  44. Bry LJ, Chou T, Miguel E, Comer JS. Consumer smartphone apps marketed for child and adolescent anxiety: A systematic review and content analysis. Behav Ther. 2018: 49(2): 249– 261. 29530263 PMC6082393 Reviews current child and adolescent anxiety apps, including clinical implications and future technological directions.
  45. [73]Seko Y, Kidd S, Wiljer D, McKenzie K. Youth mental health interventions via mobile phones: A scoping review. Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw. 2014: 17(9): 591– 602. 25007383
  46. [76]Capon H, Hall W, Fry C, Carter A. Realising the technological promise of smartphones in addiction research and treatment: An ethical review. Int J Drug Policy. 2016: 36: 47– 57. 27455467
  47. [80]Bateman DR, Srinivas B, Emmett TW, Schleyer TK, Holden RJ, Hendrie HC, Categorizing health outcomes and efficacy of mHealth apps for persons with cognitive impairment: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017: 19(8): e301. 28855146 PMC5597798
  48. [81]Christensen H, Petrie K. State of the e-mental health field in Australia: Where are we now? Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013: 47(2): 117– 20. 23297367
  49. [84]Menon V, Rajan T, Sarkar S. Psychotherapeutic applications of mobile phone-based technologies: A systematic review of current research and trends. Indian J Psychol Med. 2017: 39(1): 4– 11. 28250552 PMC5329989
  50. [86]Runyan JD, Steinke EG. Virtues, ecological momentary assessment/intervention and smartphone technology. Front Psychol. 2015: 6: 481. 25999869 PMC4422021
  51. [89]Meyer TD, Casarez R, Mohite SS, La Rosa N, Iyengar MS. Novel technology as platform for interventions for caregivers and individuals with severe mental health illnesses: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2018: 226: 169– 77. 28987999
  52. [90]Sucala M, Schnur JB, Glazier K, Miller SJ, Green JP, Montgomery GH. Hypnosis-there’s an app for that: A systematic review of hypnosis apps. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2013: 61(4): 463– 74. 23957263 PMC3804912
  53. [91]Ghorai K, Akter S, Khatun F, Ray P. mHealth for smoking cessation programs: A systematic review. J Pers Med. 2014: 4(3): 412– 23. 25563359 PMC4263966
  54. [92]Lyzwinski LN, Caffery L, Bambling M, Edirippulige S. A systematic review of electronic mindfulness-based therapeutic interventions for weight, weight-related behaviors, and psychological stress. Telemed e-Health. 2017: 24(3): 173– 184. 28885896

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Magee, J. C., Adut, S., Brazill, K., & Warnick, S.
Affiliations
  • Miami University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Magee, Joshua C.
ORCID
Venue
Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-07-16
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
345-362
ISSN
2196-3061 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40501-018-0154-0
PMC
PMC6214367
OpenAlex
W2883720495
Cited by
25
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA037320)
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
mental health apps, mobile health, primary care, user experience, post-traumatic stress disorder, smoking cessation, alcohol consumption, eating disorders, symptom monitoring, psychoeducation, barriers to treatment

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