Cited by 438Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Mobile Apps for Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review of Features and Content Quality

Open access
Nicholas, Jennifer, Larsen, Mark Erik, Proudfoot, Judith, Christensen, Helen·2015·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With continued increases in smartphone ownership, researchers and clinicians are investigating the use of this technology to enhance the management of chronic illnesses such as bipolar disorder (BD). Smartphones can be used to deliver interventions and psychoeducation, supplement treatment, and enhance therapeutic reach in BD, as apps are cost-effective, accessible, anonymous, and convenient. While the evidence-based development of BD apps is in its infancy, there has been an explosion of publicly available apps. However, the opportunity for mHealth to assist in the self-management of BD is only feasible if apps are of appropriate quality. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify the types of apps currently available for BD in the Google Play and iOS stores and to assess their features and the quality of their content. METHODS: A systematic review framework was applied to the search, screening, and assessment of apps. We searched the Australian Google Play and iOS stores for English-language apps developed for people with BD. The comprehensiveness and quality of information was assessed against core psychoeducation principles and current BD treatment guidelines. Management tools were evaluated with reference to the best-practice resources for the specific area. General app features, and privacy and security were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 571 apps identified, 82 were included in the review. Of these, 32 apps provided information and the remaining 50 were management tools including screening and assessment (n=10), symptom monitoring (n=35), community support (n=4), and treatment (n=1). Not even a quarter of apps (18/82, 22%) addressed privacy and security by providing a privacy policy. Overall, apps providing information covered a third (4/11, 36%) of the core psychoeducation principles and even fewer (2/13, 15%) best-practice guidelines. Only a third (10/32, 31%) cited their information source. Neither comprehensiveness of psychoeducation information (r=-.11, P=.80) nor adherence to best-practice guidelines (r=-.02, P=.96) were significantly correlated with average user ratings. Symptom monitoring apps generally failed to monitor critical information such as medication (20/35, 57%) and sleep (18/35, 51%), and the majority of self-assessment apps did not use validated screening measures (6/10, 60%). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the content of currently available apps for BD is not in line with practice guidelines or established self-management principles. Apps also fail to provide important information to help users assess their quality, with most lacking source citation and a privacy policy. Therefore, both consumers and clinicians should exercise caution with app selection. While mHealth offers great opportunities for the development of quality evidence-based mobile interventions, new frameworks for mobile mental health research are needed to ensure the timely availability of evidence-based apps to the public.

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/jmir.4581

Cites

39 of 39 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?

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]Frank E Matthews M Choudhury T Voida S Abdullah S Developing a smart phone app to monitor mood, social rhythms, sleep and social activity: Technology to support effective management of bipolar disorder 2013 The American College of Neuropsychopharmacology Annual Conference Dec. 8-12, 2013 Florida, United States
  2. [23]National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Bipolar Disorder: the Management of Bipolar Disorder in Adults, Children and Adolescents, in Primary and Secondary Care 2006 Leicester The British Psychological Society 21796830

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholas, J., Larsen, M. E., Proudfoot, J., & Christensen, H.
Affiliations
Black Dog Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Nicholas, Jennifer
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2015-08-17
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
e198
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128900442
Cited by
438
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1042580, 1056964)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
bipolar disorder, mobile health apps, app quality assessment, psychoeducation, self-management, symptom monitoring, medication adherence, sleep monitoring, privacy and security, app store search, user ratings, mental health apps, privacy policy disclosure
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Australia, Bipolar Disorder, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, Telemedicine, Privacy, Disease Management, 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