Cited by 163Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Towards a Framework for Evaluating Mobile Mental Health Apps

Chan, Steven, Torous, John, Hinton, Ladson, Yellowlees, Peter·2015·Telemedicine and e-Health

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Mobile phones are ubiquitous in society and owned by a majority of psychiatric patients, including those with severe mental illness. Their versatility as a platform can extend mental health services in the areas of communication, self-monitoring, self-management, diagnosis, and treatment. However, the efficacy and reliability of publicly available applications (apps) have yet to be demonstrated. Numerous articles have noted the need for rigorous evaluation of the efficacy and clinical utility of smartphone apps, which are largely unregulated. Professional clinical organizations do not provide guidelines for evaluating mobile apps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Guidelines and frameworks are needed to evaluate medical apps. Numerous frameworks and evaluation criteria exist from the engineering and informatics literature, as well as interdisciplinary organizations in similar fields such as telemedicine and healthcare informatics. RESULTS: We propose criteria for both patients and providers to use in assessing not just smartphone apps, but also wearable devices and smartwatch apps for mental health. Apps can be evaluated by their usefulness, usability, and integration and infrastructure. Apps can be categorized by their usability in one or more stages of a mental health provider's workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, leadership is needed to develop a framework for describing apps, and guidelines are needed for both patients and mental health providers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2015.0002

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 163

Authors
Chan, S., Torous, J., Hinton, L., & Yellowlees, P.
Affiliations
  • University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Chan, Steven
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Published
2015-12
Volume
21
Issue
12
Pages
1038-1041
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
OpenAlex
W1922195602
Cited by
163
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
FWCI
24.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
  • University of California, Davis
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, mobile application, wearable devices, usability, clinical utility, severe mental illness, self-management
MeSH terms
Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Mental Health, Telemedicine, Cell Phone, 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