Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35068708›Full record

ArticleAI & society2022

Recommender systems for mental health apps: advantages and ethical challenges.

Lee Valentine, Simon D'Alfonso, Reeva Lederman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI & society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. What Youth Write About and Seek in an Anonymized Online Peer Support Forum: Insights from India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Acceptability of AI-Driven Resource Signposting to Young People Using a Mental Health Peer Support App.Digital society : ethics, socio-legal and governance of digital technology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lee ValentineOrygen, Parkville, VIC 3052 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7481-6537
Simon D'AlfonsoSchool of Computing and Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7407-8730
Reeva LedermanSchool of Computing and Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4005-329X
The University of Melbourne · AUOrygen Youth Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recommender systems assist users in receiving preferred or relevant services and information. Using such technology could be instrumental in addressing the lack of relevance digital mental health apps have to the user, a leading cause of low engagement. However, the use of recommender systems for digital mental health apps, particularly those driven by personal data and artificial intelligence, presents a range of ethical considerations. This paper focuses on considerations particular to the juncture of recommender systems and digital mental health technologies. While separate bodies of work have focused on these two areas, to our knowledge, the intersection presented in this paper has not yet been examined. This paper identifies and discusses a set of advantages and ethical concerns related to incorporating recommender systems into the digital mental health (DMH) ecosystem. Advantages of incorporating recommender systems into DMH apps are identified as (1) a reduction in choice overload, (2) improvement to the digital therapeutic alliance, and (3) increased access to personal data & self-management. Ethical challenges identified are (1) lack of explainability, (2) complexities pertaining to the privacy/personalization trade-off and recommendation quality, and (3) the control of app usage history data. These novel considerations will provide a greater understanding of how DMH apps can effectively and ethically implement recommender systems.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDigital ethicsDigital healthDigital interventionsEthicsMental healthRecommender systems

Identifiers

PMID35068708
PMCPMC8761504
OpenAlexW4205786352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.