Cited by 790Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health and Patient Involvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone apps: evidence, theory and improvements

Open access

Abstract

The potential of smartphone apps to improve quality and increase access to mental health care is increasingly clear. Yet even in the current global mental health crisis, real-world uptake of smartphone apps by clinics or consumers remains low. To understand this dichotomy, this paper reviews current challenges surrounding user engagement with mental health smartphone apps. While smartphone engagement metrics and reporting remains heterogeneous in the literature, focusing on themes offers a framework to identify underlying trends. These themes suggest that apps are not designed with service users in mind, do not solve problems users care most about, do not respect privacy, are not seen as trustworthy and are unhelpful in emergencies. Respecting these current issues surrounding mental health app engagement, we propose several solutions and highlight successful examples of mental health apps with high engagement. Further research is necessary to better characterise engagement with mental health apps and identify best practices for design, testing and implementation.

Overview

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-2018-102891

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 787

Metadata

Authors
Torous, J., Nicholas, J., Larsen, M. E., Firth, J., & Christensen, H.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
Corresponding author
Torous, John
Venue
Evidence Based Mental Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-06-05
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
116-119
ISSN
  • 1362-0347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-960X
OpenAlex
W2806313543
Cited by
790
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 7
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence-Based Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • 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 › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
mental health apps, mobile application, user engagement, engagement metrics, mobile application design, privacy, trust, emergency relief, digital mental health, app uptake
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Mental Disorders, Humans, Mental Health Services, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Participation, 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