Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34259163›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

User Engagement and Usability of Suicide Prevention Apps: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.

Chelsey R Wilks, Carol Chu, DongGun Sim, Josh Lovell, Peter Gutierrez, Thomas Joiner, Ronald C Kessler, Matthew K Nock

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Chelsey R WilksDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St Louis, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9006-9305
Carol ChuMinneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9406-5478
DongGun SimSchool of Theology, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1226-9288
Josh LovellDepartment of Psychology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5484-1353
Peter GutierrezRocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Denver, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-8404
Thomas JoinerDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6798-9085
Ronald C KesslerDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4831-2305
Matthew K NockDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6508-1145
Harvard University · USBoston University · USDenver VA Medical Center · USFlorida State University · USHofstra University · USMinneapolis VA Health Care System · USUniversity of Missouri–St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with suicidal thoughts are more inclined to seek technology-delivered interventions than in-person forms of treatment, making mobile apps for suicide prevention an ideal platform for treatment delivery. This review examines apps designed for suicide prevention, with a specific focus on user engagement.

objectiveThis study aims to update the literature and broadly evaluate the landscape of mobile health apps for suicide prevention; examine apps with key features and primary approaches to suicide prevention; and systematically evaluate the engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information of the apps.

methodsAll apps related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors were identified in the Google Play and iOS app stores and were systematically reviewed for their content and quality. The mobile app rating scale (MARS) was used to evaluate app usability and engagement.

resultsOf the 66 apps identified, 42 (64%) were specifically designed for people with suicidal ideation, and 59 (89%) had at least one best practice feature for suicide risk reduction. The mean overall MARS score of all apps was 3.5 (range 2.1-4.5), with 83% (55/66) of apps having a minimum acceptability score of 3. The total MARS score was not associated with the user app rating (r=-0.001; P=.99) or the number of features (r=0.24; P=.09).

conclusionsThis study identified many usable and engaging apps in app stores designed for suicide prevention. However, there are only limited apps for clinicians. Thus, mobile apps for suicide prevention should be carefully developed and clinically evaluated.

Indexed as

engagementmHealthmobile phonesuicideusability

Identifiers

PMID34259163
PMCPMC8319780
OpenAlexW3157943908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.