Cited by 101Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps

Abstract

With over 10,000 mental health– and psychiatry-related smartphone apps available today and expanding, there is a need for reliable and valid evaluation of these digital tools. However, the updating and nonstatic nature of smartphone apps, expanding privacy concerns, varying degrees of usability, and evolving interoperability standards, among other factors, present serious challenges for app evaluation. In this article, we provide a narrative review of various schemes toward app evaluations, including commercial app store metrics, government initiatives, patient-centric approaches, point-based scoring, academic platforms, and expert review systems. We demonstrate that these different approaches toward app evaluation each offer unique benefits but often do not agree to each other and produce varied conclusions as to which apps are useful or not. Although there are no simple solutions, we briefly introduce a new initiative that aims to unify the current controversies in app elevation called CHART (Collaborative Health App Rating Teams), which will be further discussed in a second article in this series.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/nmd.0000000000000864

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 2016, High-quality mHealth apps can be blended into care "High-Quality Mhealth Apps Can Be Blended Into Care", AMA Wire
  2. 2017, Mobile Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Torous, J., Firth, J., Huckvale, K., Larsen, M. E., Cosco, T. D., Carney, R., Chan, S., Pratap, A., Yellowlees, P., Wykes, T., Keshavan, M., & Christensen, H.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
  • Torous, John
  • Chan, Steven
  • Keshavan, Matcheri
Venue
Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease
Published
2018-08
Volume
206
Issue
8
Pages
662-666
ISSN
  • 0022-3018 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-736X
OpenAlex
W2884982858
Cited by
101
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
FWCI
14.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0514-10028)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH116130)
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, app evaluation, rating systems, charts, expert review, privacy concerns, interoperability, usability, digital mental health
MeSH terms
Consensus Statements as Topic, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Mental Health, Telemedicine, Consensus, 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