CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding the quality, effectiveness and attributes of top-rated smartphone health apps

Open access
Wisniewski, Hannah, Liu, Gang, Henson, Philip, Vaidyam, Aditya, Hajratalli, Narissa Karima, Onnela, Jukka-Pekka, Torous, John·2019·Evidence Based Mental Health
DOI 10.1136/ebmental-2018-300069PMC PMC7061529
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to understand the attributes of popular apps for mental health and comorbid medical conditions, and how these qualities relate to consumer ratings, app quality and classification by the WHO health app classification framework. Methods: We selected the 10 apps from the Apple iTunes store and the US Android Google Play store on 20 July 2018 from six disease states: depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, addiction, diabetes and hypertension. Each app was downloaded by two authors who provided information on the apps’ attributes, functionality, interventions, popularity, scientific backing and WHO app classification rating. Results: A total of 120 apps were examined. Although none of these apps had Food and Drug Administration marketing approval, nearly 50% made claims that appeared medical. Most apps offered a similar type of services with 87.5% assigned WHO classification 1.4.2 ‘self-monitoring of health or diagnostic data by a client’ or 1.6.1 ‘client look-up of health information’. The ‘last updated’ attribute was highly correlated with a quality rating of the app although no apps features (eg, uses Global Positioning System, reminders and so on) were. Conclusion: Due to the heterogeneity of the apps, we were unable to define a core set of features that would accurately assess app quality. The number of apps making unsupported claims combined with the number of apps offering questionable content warrants a cautious approach by both patients and clinicians in selecting safe and effective ones. Clinical Implications: ‘Days since last updated’ offers a useful and easy clinical screening test for health apps, regardless of the condition being examined.

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/ebmental-2018-300069

Cites

22 of 22 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 22 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–112 of 112

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wisniewski, H., Liu, G., Henson, P., Vaidyam, A., Hajratalli, N. K., Onnela, J.-P., & Torous, J.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Torous, John
ORCID
Venue
Evidence Based Mental Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-01-11
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
4-9
ISSN
  • 1362-0347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-960X
DOI
10.1136/ebmental-2018-300069
PMC
PMC7061529
OpenAlex
W2909561802
Cited by
112
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 7
FWCI
23.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Evidence-Based Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile health apps, app quality, consumer ratings, mental health apps, self-monitoring, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, addiction, diabetes mellitus, hypertension
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Mental Disorders, Humans, Telemedicine, Patient Safety, 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