Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35573342›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

mHealth Solutions for Mental Health Screening and Diagnosis: A Review of App User Perspectives Using Sentiment and Thematic Analysis.

Erin Lucy Funnell, Benedetta Spadaro, Nayra Martin-Key, Tim Metcalfe, Sabine Bahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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. Asynchronous Technologies in Mental Health Care and Education.Current treatment options in psychiatry · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Erin Lucy FunnellCambridge Centre for Neuropsychiatric Research, Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Benedetta SpadaroCambridge Centre for Neuropsychiatric Research, Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Nayra Martin-KeyCambridge Centre for Neuropsychiatric Research, Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Tim MetcalfeIndependent Researcher, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Sabine BahnCambridge Centre for Neuropsychiatric Research, Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mental health screening and diagnostic apps can provide an opportunity to reduce strain on mental health services, improve patient well-being, and increase access for underrepresented groups. Despite promise of their acceptability, many mental health apps on the market suffer from high dropout due to a multitude of issues. Understanding user opinions of currently available mental health apps beyond star ratings can provide knowledge which can inform the development of future mental health apps. This study aimed to conduct a review of current apps which offer screening and/or aid diagnosis of mental health conditions on the Apple app store (iOS), Google Play app store (Android), and using the m-health Index and Navigation Database (MIND). In addition, the study aimed to evaluate user experiences of the apps, identify common app features and determine which features are associated with app use discontinuation. The Apple app store, Google Play app store, and MIND were searched. User reviews and associated metadata were then extracted to perform a sentiment and thematic analysis. The final sample included 92 apps. 45.65% (

Indexed as

app reviewsapp usersdigital healthmental healthmHealthsentiment analysisthematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID35573342
PMCPMC9091910

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.