Cited by 140Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessMobile Health and mHealth Applications

App-based psychological interventions: friend or foe?

Open access
Leigh, Simon, Flatt, Steve·2015·Evidence Based Mental Health

Abstract

In a time of increasing demand for psychological services and continually decreasing resources, unmet need with respect to National Health Service (NHS) mental health services is reaching an unprecedented level.1 While monthly referrals to community mental health teams increased 13% in 2013, and 16% in the case of crisis services, investment in mental health services has fallen in real terms for three successive years,2 not helped by the government's £22 billion target for efficiency savings. As such, the resulting loss of over 200 full-time mental health doctors and 3600 nurses1 has meant that despite a £450 million investment in reducing waiting times3 and increasing access to psychological therapies (IAPT), 1 in 10 patients experience waiting lists of over a year before receiving any form of treatment, with 1 in 2 waiting over 3 months.4 One in 6 of those on waiting lists for mental health services are expected to attempt suicide, 4 in 10 are expected to self-harm and two-thirds are likely to see their condition deteriorate before having the opportunity to see a mental health professional.1 ,5 As such, approximately 70 million sick days6 and 170 000 self-harm related accident and emergency attendances7 can be attributed to underlying mental health issues in the UK every year; with these individuals also exhibiting double the rate of both inpatient and outpatient hospital attendances compared to the UK general population.8 Unfortunately long-term prospects for those with mental health issues are not much better. Those suffering from serious mental illness face twice the risk of diabetes and death from heart disease,9 three times the risk of hypertension and a fourfold increase in all-cause premature mortality when compared with the UK general population; all of which contributing to the £105billion that mental distress costs the …

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 · 10.1136/eb-2015-102203

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • A huge number of health apps are widely available to the general healthcare public without best-practice guidelines and certifications or a standardised validation process to assess their long-term cost benefits.

    “As a result, a huge number of health apps are widely available to the general healthcare public without possessing best-practice guidelines and certifications or a standardised validation process to assess their long-term cost benefits [28].”

    From Cost-effectiveness of the mobile application TCApp combined with face-to-face CBT treatment compared to face-to-face CBT treatment alone for patients with an eating disorder: Study protocol of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (2018) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Reality (page unavailable) describes many consumer mental-health apps with little evidence of effectiveness, and Moving Forward calls for app-specific guidelines, certifications and stronger quality control. The paper does not establish this for health apps generally or describe a standardised process for assessing their long-term cost benefits; its proposed metrics concern clinical effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leigh, S., & Flatt, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Psychological Therapies Unit CIC, Liverpool, UK
Corresponding author
Leigh, Simon
Venue
Evidence Based Mental Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-10-12
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
97-99
ISSN
  • 1362-0347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-960X
OpenAlex
W2173878884
Cited by
140
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
FWCI
26.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence-Based Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
mental health apps, unmet mental health needs, severe mental illness, self-harm, suicide risk, mental health service funding
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, United Kingdom, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Mental Health Services, Psychotherapy, 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