Cited by 334Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Using science to sell apps: Evaluation of mental health app store quality claims

Open access
Larsen, Mark Erik, Huckvale, Kit, Nicholas, Jennifer, Torous, John, Birrell, Louise, Li, Emily, Reda, Bill·2019·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Despite the emergence of curated app libraries for mental health apps, personal searches by consumers remain a common method for discovering apps. App store descriptions therefore represent a key channel to inform consumer choice. This study examined the claims invoked through these app store descriptions, the extent to which scientific language is used to support such claims, and the corresponding evidence in the literature. Google Play and iTunes were searched for apps related to depression, self-harm, substance use, anxiety, and schizophrenia. The descriptions of the top-ranking, consumer-focused apps were coded to identify claims of acceptability and effectiveness, and forms of supporting statement. For apps which invoked ostensibly scientific principles, a literature search was conducted to assess their credibility. Seventy-three apps were coded, and the majority (64%) claimed effectiveness at diagnosing a mental health condition, or improving symptoms, mood or self-management. Scientific language was most frequently used to support these effectiveness claims (44%), although this included techniques not validated by literature searches (8/24 = 33%). Two apps described low-quality, primary evidence to support the use of the app. Only one app included a citation to published literature. A minority of apps (14%) described design or development involving lived experience, and none referenced certification or accreditation processes such as app libraries. Scientific language was the most frequently invoked form of support for use of mental health apps; however, high-quality evidence is not commonly described. Improved knowledge translation strategies may improve the adoption of other strategies, such as certification or lived experience co-design.

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/s41746-019-0093-1

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Other reviews concluded that the quality of evidence supporting the efficacy of mental health apps is insufficient.

    “Other reviews have evaluated mental health apps more broadly, concluding that the quality of evidence supporting their efficacy is insufficient (Larsen et al. 2019; Wisniewski et al. 2019)”

    From Evaluating the quality, safety, and functionality of commonly used smartphone apps for bipolar disorder mood and sleep self-management (2022) · cites this paper as Larsen et al. 2019

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says that only two of the 73 apps examined provided direct evidence associated with app use, and that even this fell short of high-quality evidence. That supports concern about the evidence for the apps reviewed, but not a general conclusion that evidence for mental health app efficacy is insufficient; the Introduction notes reviews finding apps effective for depression and anxiety. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 55% of the apps most commonly used by individuals with BD have published evidence.

    “Whilst reviews of the broader BD app landscape report very low incidence of scientific evidence for available apps (Larsen et al. 2019), 55% of the apps most commonly used by individuals with BD have published evidence (albeit, with the limitations discussed above).”

    From Evaluating the quality, safety, and functionality of commonly used smartphone apps for bipolar disorder mood and sleep self-management (2022) · cites this paper as Larsen et al. 2019

    The citation is attached to the first clause, about low scientific-evidence availability, not to the citing authors’ 55% figure. The Discussion reports that only two of 73 apps provided direct evidence associated with app use, supporting the low-incidence point. However, the Methods’ search strategy covers five mental health conditions and does not specifically examine the broader bipolar-disorder app landscape. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 1

  1. [26]OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2 https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 (2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larsen, M. E., Huckvale, K., Nicholas, J., Torous, J., Birrell, L., Li, E., & Reda, B.
Affiliations
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Larsen, Mark Erik
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2019-03-22
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
18-18
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2925166053
Cited by
334
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 14
FWCI
49.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mental health apps, scientific language, quality of evidence, consumer choice, knowledge translation, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, substance use, self-harm, Google Play Store, iTunes

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