By the numbers: ratings and utilization of behavioral health mobile applications
Open accessAbstract
Although >10,000 behavioral health applications ("apps") are currently available on the Apple and Google Play marketplaces, they have been minimally evaluated or regulated and little is known about "real world" usage patterns. This investigation combined data from online behavioral health app rating frameworks and a mobile health market research firm to identify the most downloaded apps as well as determine rating and ranking concordance between frameworks. Findings demonstrated that the most commonly downloaded apps focus on relaxation, mindfulness, and meditation skills and that they often have notably discordant reviews across rating frameworks. Our results suggest that there is a growing need for: (1) standardized behavioral health app quality and effectiveness measures, (2) up-to-date behavioral health app guidance for clinicians and consumers, and (3) evidence-based apps that incorporate revealed consumer preferences.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Clinicians/researchers and the public may not share priorities for content, features, or aesthetics.
“as clinicians/researchers and the public may not share priorities for content, features, or aesthetics (Carlo 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 Carlo et al. 2019
Subjectivity inherent in rating user experience aspects is a likely source of inconsistencies in app evaluations.
“It has been suggested that the subjectivity inherent in rating such aspects is a likely source of inconsistencies in app evaluations (Carlo 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 Carlo et al. 2019
Several exemplar frameworks exist that cover core principles for digital mental health treatment standards.
“Several exemplar frameworks exist that cover core principles for DMHT standards (52, 54, 55), which we elaborate on next.”
From Banbury forum consensus statement on the path forward for digital mental health treatment (2021) · cites this paper as [54]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 164
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [35]ORCHA. Organization for the Review of Care and Health Applications (ORCHA), < https://www.orcha.co.uk> (2019).
- [52]Neary M, doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.01.002. · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Carlo, A. D., Hosseini Ghomi, R., Renn, B. N., & Areán, P. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carlo, Andrew D.
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2019-06-17
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 54-54
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6572775
- OpenAlex
- W2950361006
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 27.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Washington (P50MH115837)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH104159, T32MH073553, P50MH115837)
- 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
- app ratings, app downloads, app reviews, mindfulness apps, meditation apps, consumer preferences, mobile health
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
