Cited by 333Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Mental health: there’s an app for that

Open access
Anthes, Emily·2016·Nature

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 · 10.1038/532020a

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • The majority of research in this field are pilot studies with no comparison group or randomized controlled trials that have not yet been replicated.

    “the majority of research published in this field are pilot studies with no comparison group or randomized studies [Randomized controled trials (RCTs)] that have not yet been replicated (89).”

    From Mobile intervention for individuals with psychosis, dual disorders, and their common comorbidities: A literature review (2019) · cites this paper as [89]

    The “ABSENT EVIDENCE” section says much of the research on mental-health apps has been limited to pilot studies and that randomized trials tend to be small and unreplicated. It does not say the pilot studies lacked comparison groups, and “much” does not establish a majority. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some authors link the lack of consistency in the security of applications to ambiguous government regulations.

    “Some authors also link the lack of consistency in the security of applications to the fact that government regulations in this field are sometimes ambiguous—e.g., an application pretending to cure a condition will not be subject to the same level of evaluation as an application designed to “improve mood” (89).”

    From Mobile intervention for individuals with psychosis, dual disorders, and their common comorbidities: A literature review (2019) · cites this paper as [89]

    In the section headed “IF YOU TYPE IN ‘DEPRESSION’” (page not specified), the paper calls mental-health app regulation opaque and says an app claiming to treat a disease is more likely to attract regulatory scrutiny than one promising to “boost mood.” The same section reports that some apps transmitted identifying information without encryption, but it does not link inconsistent app security to ambiguous regulations. It also does not describe the treatment claims as pretence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Given the rapid penetration of smartphones in Latin America and elsewhere, the integration of app-based interventions may offer the potential to provide more widely distributed mental health care.

    “Given the rapid penetration of smartphones in Latin America and elsewhere, the integration of app-based interventions may offer the potential to provide more widely distributed mental health care [53].”
  • Mental health services do not reach about 55% of people in developed countries and 85% of people in developing countries.

    “mental health services do not reach about 55% and 85% of people in developed and developing countries, respectively [9].”
  • According to the World Health Organization, 29% of the 15,000 mobile health apps focused on mental health.

    “According to the World Health Organization [9], 29% of the 15,000 mobile health apps focused on mental health.”

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. Beiwinkel, T. et al. J. Med. Internet Res. 3, e23 (2016).
  2. Watts, S. et al. BMC Psychiatry 13, 49 (2013).
  3. Birney, A. J., Gunn, R., Russell, J. K. & Ary, D. V. J. Med. Internet Res. 4, e8 (2016).
  4. Martínez-Pérez, B., de la Torre-Díez, I. & López-Coronado, M. J. Med. Internet Res. 15, e120 (2013).
  5. Donker, T. et al. J. Med. Internet Res. 15, e247 (2013).
  6. Huckvale, K., Prieto, J. T., Tilney, M., Benghozi, P.-J. & Car, J. BMC Med. 13, 214 (2015).
  7. Nicholas, J., Larsen, M. E., Proudfoot, J. & Christensen, H. J. Med. Internet Res. 17, e198 (2015).
  8. Gajecki, M., Berman, A. H., Sinadinovic, K., Rosendahl, I. & Andersson, C. Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract. 9, 11 (2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anthes, E.
Corresponding author
Anthes, Emily
Venue
Nature
Published
2016-04-06
Volume
532
Issue
7597
Pages
20-23
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2322637108
Cited by
333
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 10 · 2013: 1
FWCI
57.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
mental health apps, mobile application, digital mental health interventions, addiction treatment, schizophrenia, app efficacy, evidence-based assessment
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Clinical Trials as Topic, Depression, Developing Countries, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Mental Health, Pilot Projects, Psychiatry, Public Health, Self Care, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Telemedicine, 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