Cited by 160Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A review of popular smartphone apps for depression and anxiety: Assessing the inclusion of evidence-based content

Open access
Wasil, Akash R., Venturo-Conerly, Katherine E., Shingleton, Rebecca M., Weisz, John R.·2019·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Smartphone applications for the treatment of depression and anxiety have acquired millions of users, yet little is known about whether they include evidence-based therapeutic content. We examined the extent to which popular mental health applications (MH apps) for depression and anxiety contain treatment elements found in empirically supported psychotherapy protocols (i.e., "common elements"). Of the 27 MH apps reviewed, 23 included at least one common element, with a median of three elements. Psychoeducation (in 52% of apps), relaxation (44%), meditation (41%), mindfulness (37%), and assessment (37%) were the most frequent elements, whereas several elements (e.g., problem solving) were not found in any apps. We also identified gaps between app content and empirically supported treatments. Cognitive restructuring was more common in depression protocols than in depression apps (75% of protocols vs. 31% of apps), as was problem solving (34% vs. 0%). For anxiety, exposure (85%, 12%), cognitive restructuring (60%, 12%), and problem solving (25%, 0%) were more common in protocols than apps. Overall, our findings highlight empirically supported treatment elements that are poorly represented in current MH apps. The absence of several core treatment elements underscores the need for future research, including randomized trials testing the effectiveness of popular MH apps.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2019.103498

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wasil, A. R., Venturo-Conerly, K. E., Shingleton, R. M., & Weisz, J. R.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Wasil, Akash R.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
123
Pages
103498
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981909951
Cited by
160
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 19
FWCI
24.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Harvard University
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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
mental health apps, mobile application, depression, anxiety, evidence-based treatment, common elements, psychoeducation, relaxation, meditation, mindfulness, cognitive restructuring, exposure therapy, problem solving, digital mental health
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Anxiety, Depression, Humans, 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