Smartphone, Social Media, and Mental Health App Use in an Acute Transdiagnostic Psychiatric Sample
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Despite high rates of smartphone ownership in psychiatric populations, there are very little data available characterizing smartphone use in individuals with mental illness. In particular, few studies have examined the interest and use of smartphones to support mental health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) characterize general smartphone app and social media usage in an acute transdiagnostic psychiatric sample with high smartphone ownership, (2) characterize current engagement and interest in the use of smartphone apps to support mental health, and (3) test demographic and clinical predictors of smartphone use. METHODS: The survey was completed by all patients attending an adult partial hospital program, with no exclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were frequency of use of general and mental health smartphone apps (smartphone use survey) and the frequency of social media use and phone-checking behavior (mobile technology engagement scale). RESULTS: Overall, 322 patients (aged mean 33.49, SD 13.87 years; 57% female) reported that their most frequently used app functions were texting, email, and social media. Younger individuals reported more frequent use across most types of apps. Baseline depression and anxiety symptoms were not associated with the frequency of app use. Participants reported health care, calendar, and texting apps as most supportive of their mental health and social media apps as most negatively affecting their mental health. Most patients reported an interest in (73.9% [238/322]) and willingness to use (81.3% [262/322]) a smartphone app to monitor their mental health condition. Less than half (44%) of the patients currently had a mental health app downloaded on their smartphone, with mindfulness and meditation apps being the most common type. CONCLUSIONS: The high interest in and willingness to use mental health apps, paired with the only moderate current reported usage, indicate a potential unmet treatment opportunity in psychiatric populations. There is potential to optimize non-mental health-specific apps to better support the needs of those with mental illness and to design a new wave of mental health apps that match the needs of these populations as well as the way they use smartphones in daily life.
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?
People with mental health needs have reported using wellbeing apps designed for the general population, not necessarily those targeting their diagnosed conditions.
“people with mental health needs have reported using wellbeing apps designed for the general population, not necessarily those targeting their diagnosed conditions (Rubanovich et al. 2017; Beard et al. 2019).”
From Evaluating the quality, safety, and functionality of commonly used smartphone apps for bipolar disorder mood and sleep self-management (2022) · cites this paper as Beard et al. 2019
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 34 · Cited by 58
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [19]Forgeard M Beard C Kirakosian N Björgvinsson T Codd R Research in partial hospital settings Practice-Based Research: A Guide for Clinicians 2018 New York Routledge 221 39
- Authors
- Beard, C., Silverman, A. L., Forgeard, M., Wilmer, M. T., Torous, J., & Björgvinsson, T.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Beard, Courtney
- ORCID
- Venue
- JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2019-06-07
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e13364
- ISSN
- 2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6592519
- OpenAlex
- W2952199641
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 7.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR mhealth and uhealth (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
- McLean Hospital
- National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH113600)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- smartphone use, mental health apps, social media use, partial hospitalization, depression, anxiety, mindfulness apps, meditation apps, digital mental health
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Media, 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