Cited by 158Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsBipolar Disorder and Treatment

The Reviews Are in: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Consumer Perspectives on Apps for Bipolar Disorder

Open access
Nicholas, Jennifer, Fogarty, Andrea S, Boydell, Katherine, Christensen, Helen·2017·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The delivery of mobile health (mHealth) services is acceptable to mental health consumers. However, despite the benefits of accessibility, cost-effectiveness, anonymity, and ability to tailor content to individual needs, consumer engagement remains a hurdle for uptake and continued use. This may be unsurprising as few studies have examined app content from the consumer perspective or assessed consumer preferences for the content of apps for mental health management. An opportunity to examine consumer perspectives exists in using naturally generated data that is publically available in the Google Play and Apple app stores. Whereas commercial developers routinely use this data, to date there has been no in-depth evaluation within scientific research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to explore what consumers consider useful content for mental health management apps, identify unmet needs, and understand user expectations of mental health apps within the context of apps for bipolar disorder. METHODS: Publically available English language consumer reviews of 48 apps for bipolar disorder were used as data, providing a total of 2173 reviews. Review text was coded and analyzed using a team approach to qualitative content analysis. Results were presented in 2 forms: (1) a quantitative summary of the 9 major and minor themes and (2) a qualitative synthesis of key thematic findings. RESULTS: The majority of reviews were for symptom monitoring apps (87.94%, 1911/2173). The qualitative content analysis revealed 5 main themes: (1) laudatory talk, comments regarding the app's benefits including helpfulness and successful design features (74.00% of reviews, 1608/2173); (2) unfavorable feedback, negative reviews largely concerning unmet needs, privacy and technical issues, and potential dangers of app use (25.54%, 555/2173); (3) conceptions of community, referring to both communities of users with mental ill-health accessed via the app and a community created among app users and developers (24.25%, 527/2173); (4) wishlist features, app features requested by users (17.53%, 381/2173); and (5) apps and therapy, app use within clinical care (10.58%, 230/2173). Four minor themes were also identified: (1) app cost, (2) privacy and data security, (3) comparisons with traditional monitoring, and (4) evidence-based mHealth. CONCLUSIONS: Although mostly positive, the proportion of reviews containing wishlist requests indicates consumer needs are not adequately addressed by currently available disorder management apps. Consumers value content that is helpful, supportive, and easy to use, and they are integrating apps into their health management and clinical care without necessarily considering the evidence-base or clinical effectiveness of the tool. User expectations regarding developer responsiveness to their needs has implications for community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation. However, this expectation is incompatible with current mHealth funding structures.

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.7273

Cites

47 of 48 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?

  • A qualitative analysis of public reviews of apps developed for BD highlighted a number of unmet needs and complaints regarding functionality, suggesting that consumer preferences are currently not adequately addressed.

    “indeed, a qualitative analysis of public reviews of apps developed for BD highlighted a number of unmet needs and complaints regarding functionality (Nicholas et al. 2017a), suggesting that consumer preferences are currently not adequately addressed.”

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. [21]Patton M Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition) 2002 Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications
  2. [47]Grey F O'Hagan M Mental Health Commission of New South Wales 2015 The effectiveness of services led or run by consumers in mental health: Rapid review of evidence for recovery-orientated outcomes https://goo.gl/XjxIDx

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholas, J., Fogarty, A. S., Boydell, K., & Christensen, H.
Affiliations
Black Dog Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Nicholas, Jennifer
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2017-04-07
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
e105
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2604372657
Cited by
158
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2
FWCI
14.08
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)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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, mental health apps, mobile health, consumer reviews, user expectations, unmet needs, privacy and data security, online communities, app features, app cost, mental health service users, app reviews, Google Play Store, App Store, user engagement, mental health stigma, digital mental health interventions
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Bipolar Disorder, Consumer Behavior, Data Collection, Humans, Mental Health, Telemedicine, Qualitative Research, 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