mHealth in psychiatry: time for methodological change
Open accessAbstract
A multitude of mental health apps are available to consumers through the Apple and Google app stores. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of mHealth is scant. We argue this gap between app availability and research evidence is primarily due to unsuitable knowledge translation practices and therefore suggest abandoning the randomised controlled trial as the primary app evaluation paradigm. Alternative evaluation methodologies such as iterative participatory research and single case designs are better aligned with mHealth translational needs. A further challenge to the use of mobile technology in mental health is the dissemination of information about app quality to consumers. Strategies to facilitate successful dissemination of quality resources must consider several factors, such as target audience and context. In practice, structured solutions to inform consumers of evidence-informed apps could range from the development of consumer used tools to app accreditation portals. Consumer enthusiasm for apps represents an opportunity to increase access and support for psychiatric populations. However, adoption of alternative research methodologies and the development of dissemination strategies are vital before this opportunity can be substantially seized.
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?
Many apps for depression and anxiety that are currently available are not evidence-based and may thus actually be harmful to people with mental illness.
“Notably, however, many apps for depression and anxiety that are currently available are not evidence-based and may thus actually be harmful to people with mental illness (18).”
From What Works and What Doesn’t Work? A Systematic Review of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression and Anxiety in Young People (2019) · cites this paper as [18]
The paper says that evidence for mental-health apps is scant and describes many available apps as unevaluated and not evidence-informed (body text indexed under Abstract; page not provided). It also warns that consumers may use insecure or ineffective apps. It does not specifically establish this for depression and anxiety apps or say that those apps may harm people with mental illness. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 34
- Authors
- Nicholas, J., Boydell, K., & Christensen, H.
- Affiliations
- Black Dog Institute (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Nicholas, Jennifer
- Venue
- Evidence-Based Mental Health
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2016-04-04
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 33-34
- ISSN
- 1362-0347 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-960X
- PMC
- PMC10699417
- OpenAlex
- W2339334157
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 8.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Keywords
- mobile health, mental health apps, app evaluation, knowledge translation, randomized controlled trials, participatory research, single-case experimental design, customer engagement, digital mental health interventions
- MeSH terms
- Health Resources, Humans, Psychiatry, Telemedicine, 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
