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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Fig. 1 Histograms showing the frequency of specific categories of supporting statements based on the type of effectiveness claim made by an app. Each app can contain multiple types of supporting statements
Fig. 1 Histograms showing the frequency of specific categories of supporting statements based on the type of effectiveness claim made by an app. Each app can contain multiple types of supporting statementsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Histograms showing the frequency of specific categories of supporting statements based on the app functionality. Each app can contain multiple functionalities, and multiple types of supporting statements
Fig. 2 Histograms showing the frequency of specific categories of supporting statements based on the app functionality. Each app can contain multiple functionalities, and multiple types of supporting statementsCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 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

Metadata

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