Cited by 71Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealthcare Regulation

A health app developer’s guide to law and policy: a multi-sector policy analysis

Open access
Parker, Lisa, Karliychuk, Tanya, Gillies, Donna, Mintzes, Barbara, Raven, Melissa, Grundy, Quinn·2017·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Apps targeted at health and wellbeing sit in a rapidly growing industry associated with widespread optimism about their potential to deliver accessible and cost-effective healthcare. App developers might not be aware of all the regulatory requirements and best practice principles are emergent. Health apps are regulated in order to minimise their potential for harm due to, for example, loss of personal health privacy, financial costs, and health harms from delayed or unnecessary diagnosis, monitoring and treatment. We aimed to produce a comprehensive guide to assist app developers in producing health apps that are legally compliant and in keeping with high professional standards of user protection. METHODS: We conducted a case study analysis of the Australian and related international policy environment for mental health apps to identify relevant sectors, policy actors, and policy solutions. RESULTS: We identified 29 policies produced by governments and non-government organisations that provide oversight of health apps. In consultation with stakeholders, we developed an interactive tool targeted at app developers, summarising key features of the policy environment and highlighting legislative, industry and professional standards around seven relevant domains: privacy, security, content, promotion and advertising, consumer finances, medical device efficacy and safety, and professional ethics. We annotated this developer guidance tool with information about: the relevance of each domain; existing legislative and non-legislative guidance; critiques of existing policy; recommendations for developers; and suggestions for other key stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that mental health apps developed in accordance with this tool will be more likely to conform to regulatory requirements, protect consumer privacy, protect consumer finances, and deliver health benefit; and less likely to attract regulatory penalties, offend consumers and communities, mislead consumers, or deliver health harms. We encourage government, industry and consumer organisations to use and publicise the tool.

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 · 10.1186/s12911-017-0535-0

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Studies report very few mental health applications with an adequate privacy policy or secure data transmission methods.

    “Studies report very few mental health applications with an adequate privacy policy or secure data transmission methods (119–121).”

    From Mobile intervention for individuals with psychosis, dual disorders, and their common comorbidities: A literature review (2019) · cites this paper as [121]

    The Results > Consumer privacy section says many mental health apps lack privacy policies and that existing policies are often difficult for non-technical users to understand. The Results > Data security section recommends strong protections, but the passages found do not report how many apps use secure data transmission methods. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Policies protecting app users are not rigorously applied today and lack information in important areas such as third-party data use.

    “Unfortunately, policies protecting app users are not rigorously being applied today and are lacking information in some important areas such as the use of data by a third party (121).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [7]Australian Government Australian Government response to Contributing Lives, Thriving Communities - Review of mental health programmes and services 2015 Canberra, ACT Commonwealth of Australia
  2. [58]Welch HG Schwartz LM Woloshin S Overdiagnosed. Making people sick inthe pursuit of health 2011 Massachusetts Beacon Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parker, L., Karliychuk, T., Gillies, D., Mintzes, B., Raven, M., & Grundy, Q.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (AU)
  • Western Sydney Local Health District (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Parker, Lisa
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2017-10-02
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
141-141
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762469592
Cited by
71
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6
FWCI
15.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Australian Communications Consumer Action Network
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 › Healthcare Regulation
Keywords
health apps, mental health apps, app regulation, health policy, privacy, data security, consumer protection, medical device regulation, professional ethics, Australian health policy
MeSH terms
Australia, Ethics, Medical, Health Policy, Humans, Mental Health, Policy Making, Privacy, 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