Towards a Framework for Evaluating Mobile Mental Health Apps
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Usability, usefulness, and accessibility have been documented as the key factors leading to successful and effective apps for mental illness management.
“Usability, usefulness, and accessibility have been documented as the key factors leading to successful and effective apps for mental illness management [46].”
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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