Cited by 40Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health Research Topics

Methodological challenges in randomized controlled trials on smartphone-based treatment in psychiatry: systematic review

Open access
Tønning, Morten Lindbjerg, Kessing, Lars Vedel, Bardram, Jakob Eivind, Faurholt-Jepsen, Maria·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based technology is developing at high speed, and many apps offer potential new ways of monitoring and treating a range of psychiatric disorders and symptoms. However, the effects of most available apps have not been scientifically investigated. Within medicine, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the standard method for providing the evidence of effects. However, their rigidity and long time frame may contrast with the field of information technology research. Therefore, a systematic review of methodological challenges in designing and conducting RCTs within mobile health is needed. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to (1) identify and describe RCTs investigating the effect of smartphone-based treatment in adult patients with a psychiatric diagnosis, (2) discuss methodological challenges in designing and conducting individual trials, and (3) suggest recommendations for future trials. METHODS: A systematic search in English was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE up to August 12, 2019. The search terms were (1) psychiatric disorders in broad term and for specific disorders AND (2) smartphone or app AND (3) RCT. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials electronic health guidelines were used as a template for data extraction. The focus was on trial design, method, and reporting. Only trials having sufficient information on diagnosis and acceptable diagnostic procedures, having a smartphone as a central part of treatment, and using an RCT design were included. RESULTS: A total of 27 trials comprising 3312 patients within a range of psychiatric diagnoses were included. Among them, 2 trials were concerning drug or alcohol abuse, 3 psychosis, 10 affective disorders, 9 anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder, 1 eating disorder, and 1 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In addition, 1 trial used a cross-diagnostic design, 7 trials included patients with a clinical diagnosis that was subsequently assessed and validated by the researchers, and 11 trials had a sample size above 100. Generally, large between-trial heterogeneity and multiple approaches to patient recruitment, diagnostic procedures, trial design, comparator, outcome measures, and analyses were identified. Only 5 trials published a trial protocol. Furthermore, 1 trial provided information regarding technological updates, and only 18 trials reported on the conflicts of interest. No trial addressed the ethical aspects of using smartphones in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This first systematic review of the methodological challenges in designing and conducting RCTs investigating smartphone-based treatment in psychiatric patients suggests an increasing number of trials but with a lower quality compared with classic medical RCTs. Heterogeneity and methodological issues in individual trials limit the evidence. Methodological recommendations are presented.

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 · 10.2196/15362

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • The current trial will evaluate intervention effects using only self-reported outcome measures, which may create a risk of bias due to social desirability and shared method variance and reduce the generalizability of the results to clinical practice.

    “However, it should be noted that the current trial will evaluate the intervention effects using only self-reported outcome measures, which may create a risk of bias due to social desirability and shared method variance and reduce the generalizability of the results to clinical practice (Tønning et al., 2019).”

    From Efficacy and mechanisms of mobile application-delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in China: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as Tønning et al., 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tønning, M. L., Kessing, L. V., Bardram, J. E., & Faurholt-Jepsen, M.
Affiliations
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-10-27
Volume
21
Issue
10
Pages
e15362
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982656086
Cited by
40
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
mobile health, mental illness, randomized controlled trials, trial design, methodological quality, trial reporting quality, conflicts of interest, mental health apps, outcome measures, patient recruitment, diagnostic procedures, trial size, trial duration, clinical trial registration
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Data Collection, Humans, Mental Health, Psychiatry, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine

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