Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30914003›Full record

SynthesisPsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2019

User Engagement in Mental Health Apps: A Review of Measurement, Reporting, and Validity.

Michelle M Ng, Joseph Firth, Mia Minen, John Torous

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 158 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

158 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. A systematic review of smartphone applications for cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

98 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michelle M NgDivision of Digital Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Ng, Torous); National Institute of Complementary Medicine Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, and Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (Firth); Headache Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York (Minen).
Joseph FirthDivision of Digital Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Ng, Torous); National Institute of Complementary Medicine Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, and Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (Firth); Headache Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York (Minen).
Mia MinenDivision of Digital Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Ng, Torous); National Institute of Complementary Medicine Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, and Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (Firth); Headache Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York (Minen).
John TorousDivision of Digital Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Ng, Torous); National Institute of Complementary Medicine Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, and Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (Firth); Headache Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York (Minen).

Funding

Progressive Muscle Relaxation for Chronic Pain in an Acute Care SettingK23AT009706 · NCCIH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MINEN, MIA · 2018 to 2022
$923k
Digital Phenotyping for Computational Models of Relapse Prediction in Early Course PsychosisK23MH116130 · NIMH · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOROUS, JOHN · 2018 to 2021
$872k
NCCIH NIH HHS K23 AT009706NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH116130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDespite the potential benefits of mobile mental health apps, real-world results indicate engagement issues because of low uptake and sustained use. This review examined how studies have measured and reported on user engagement indicators (UEIs) for mental health apps.

methodsA systematic review of multiple databases was performed in July 2018 for studies of mental health apps for depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety that reported on UEIs, namely usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, and feasibility. The subjective and objective criteria used to assess UEIs, among other data, were extracted from each study.

resultsOf 925 results, 40 studies were eligible. Every study reported positive results for the usability, satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility of the app. Of the 40 studies, 36 (90%) employed 371 indistinct subjective criteria that were assessed with surveys, interviews, or both, and 23 studies used custom subjective scales, rather than preexisting standardized assessment tools. A total of 25 studies (63%) used objective criteria-with 71 indistinct measures. No two studies used the same combination of subjective or objective criteria to assess UEIs of the app.

conclusionsThe high heterogeneity and use of custom criteria to assess mental health apps in terms of usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility present a challenge for understanding real-world low uptake of these apps. Every study reviewed claimed that UEIs for the app were rated highly, which suggests a need for the field to focus on engagement by creating reporting standards and more carefully considering claims.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicMental DisordersMobile ApplicationsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionHumansBipolar DisorderComputer technologyDepressionSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID30914003
PMCPMC6839109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.