The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the Efficacy of Mobile Health Apps Using the Basic Principles of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Systematic Review
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in its basic principle has developed itself as a stand-alone, substantial method of therapy. With effective application in therapy for a range of mental health issues, the spread of CBT methods to Web-based therapy sources is evident. The development of mobile phone apps using CBT principles is increasing within the research area. Despite the move to Web-based methods of therapy, it is argued that these methods lack the same efficacy of face-to-face therapy sessions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to assess extent research findings with regard to the effectiveness of CBT-related mobile health (mHealth) apps. By assessing only studies employing a randomized controlled trial design, the review aimed to determine app efficacy within the highly regarded method of investigation. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across several databases. Search results were filtered, and results were subject to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria because of the nature of the review. Where possible, analysis of effect size was calculated and results reported. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies investigating the effectiveness of mHealth CBT-related apps across a range of mental health issues were reviewed. Three studies used the app against a control group, and 5 studies used the app intervention against another form of treatment or intervention. A range of effect sizes were seen across all included studies (d=-0.13 to 1.83; 0.03-1.44), with the largest effects often being seen when comparing the data from pre- to posttest for the app engaged group. CONCLUSIONS: The studies reviewed support the use of mHealth apps containing CBT principles for a range of mental health issues. However, the effectiveness over longer time periods should be assessed. Researchers and professionals should seek to collaborate effectively when creating new apps to enhance their effectiveness as a treatment for the general public.
Overview
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
Figures
Verification
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Studies have shown that CBT smartphone apps have therapeutic potential [31]”
From Technology enabled clinical care (TECC): Protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of smartphone-augmented mental health treatment (2021) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“A systematic review of eight randomized controlled trials (n = 1794) investigating psychological outcomes from the use of mHealth apps to manage depression, chronic pain acceptance, insomnia severity, stress or PTSD symptoms showed variations in effect sizes (d = −0.13 to 1.83; 0.03–1.44) with higher engagement associated with improved outcomes.”
From What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients? (2020) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“Many mHealth applications for ER training were developed, mainly focused on cognitive change (Beck, 2017), mindfulness (Plaza et al., 2013), or more generally, on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) principles (Rathbone et al., 2017).”
From New Technologies for the Understanding, Assessment, and Intervention of Emotion Regulation (2019) · cites this paper as Rathbone et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,586
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Cognitive Therapy of Depression
HOLLON, S. D., & BECK, A. T. (1979) · Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-404480-7.50012-5 · Cited by 4,685
The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses
Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1 · Cited by 3,445 · cited 1×
“CBT focuses on personal connotations added to situations and produces empowering psychological strategies to reevaluate the meanings attributed to situations, promoting learned practice for more positively altered behaviors, emotions, and thoughts [4].”
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Li, S., Sun, F., Niu, Y., & Du, L. (2015) · Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1111/jebm.12141 · Cited by 2,082
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Hollon, SD, 1994, Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. 4th edition, 428
- Huang, FF, 2016, Int J Web Appl, 8, 1
- Beck, AT, 2015, Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders. 3rd edition
- Dobson, KS, 2009, Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies. 3rd edition
- Beck, JS, 2006, Cognitive-behavioral therapy. Prim. Psychiatr, 13, 31
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inkster, B., Sarda, S., & Subramanian, V. (2018) · doi:10.2196/preprints.12106 · Cited by 1,063
Automated assessment of psychiatric disorders using speech: A systematic review
Low, D. M., Bentley, K. H., & Ghosh, S. (2020) · Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · doi:10.1002/lio2.354 · Cited by 545
What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients?
Rowland, S. P., Fitzgerald, J. E., Holme, T., Powell, J., & McGregor, A. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0206-x · Cited by 454
An overview of and recommendations for more accessible digital mental health services
Lattie, E. G., Stiles-Shields, C., & Graham, A. K. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00003-1 · Cited by 446
A Mental Health Chatbot for Regulating Emotions (SERMO) - Concept and Usability Test
Denecke, K., Vaaheesan, S., & Arulnathan, A. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing · doi:10.1109/tetc.2020.2974478 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Rathbone, A. L., Clarry, L., & Prescott, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Greater Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Prescott, Julie
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2017-11-28
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e399
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5727354
- OpenAlex
- W2768506072
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15
- FWCI
- 1.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion)
- UBIR (University of Greater Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UBIR (University of Greater Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Bolton
- 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 › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- mobile health apps, cognitive behavioral therapy, digital mental health interventions, app efficacy, mental illness, effect size, online therapy
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Telemedicine, 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
