Cited by 308Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health Research Topics

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

Wang, Kai, Varma, Deepthi S., Prosperi, Mattia·2018·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

Background There are a growing number of mobile apps available for monitoring and management of mental health symptoms or disorders. However, clinically validated evidence for most of them is unclear; their benefits to patients on long term use are thus debatable.Objective This updated review aimed to systematically appraise the available research evidence of the efficacy and acceptability of mobile apps for mental health in all ages.Methods A comprehensive literature search (May 2013 to December 2017) in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted. Abstracts were included if they described mental health apps (targeting depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, psychosis, post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), substance use disorders, sleep disorders, and suicidal behaviors) delivered on mobile devices for all ages.Results In total, 1501 abstracts were identified. Of these, 17 publications describing 16 apps targeting anxiety/stress, alcohol disorder, sleep disorder, depression, suicidal behaviors, and PTSD met the inclusion criteria. Five studies randomized individuals to trial conditions, and 14 apps were proven to have clinically validated evidence in reducing mental health symptoms or disorder.Conclusions Mental health apps have potentials in improving the monitoring and management of mental health symptoms or disorders. However, majority of the apps that are currently available lack clinically validated evidence of their efficacy. Given the number and pace at which mobile Health (mHealth) apps are being released, further robust research is warranted to develop and test evidence-based programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.10.006

Cites

40 of 40 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, K., Varma, D. S., & Prosperi, M.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Prosperi, Mattia
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
107
Pages
73-78
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2894742168
Cited by
308
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
mental health apps, mobile health, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, psychosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, sleep disorders, suicidal behavior, symptom monitoring, treatment efficacy, acceptability
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Disease Management, 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