Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35642024›Full record

ArticleBorderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation2022

A systematic quality rating of available mobile health apps for borderline personality disorder.

Lena Sophia Steubl, Josephin Reimann, Laura Simon, Yannik Terhorst, Michael Stach, Harald Baumeister, Lasse Bosse Sander, Eva-Maria Messner

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Lena Sophia SteublInstitute of Psychology and Education, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. lena.steubl@uni-ulm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8508-5271
Josephin ReimannInstitute of Psychology and Education, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Laura SimonInstitute of Psychology and Education, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Yannik TerhorstInstitute of Psychology and Education, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Michael StachInstitute of Databases and Information Systems (DBIS), Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Harald BaumeisterInstitute of Psychology and Education, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Lasse Bosse SanderInstitute of Psychology, Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Eva-Maria MessnerInstitute of Psychology and Education, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health apps (MHAs) may offer a mean to overcome treatment barriers in Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) mental health care. However, MHAs for BPD on the market lack transparency and quality assessment.

methodsEuropean app stores were systematically searched, and two independent trained reviewers extracted relevant MHAs. Employed methods and privacy and security details documentation of included MHAs were extracted. MHAs were then assessed and rated using the German version of the standardized Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS-G). Mean values and standard deviations of all subscales (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and therapeutic gain) and correlations with user ratings were calculated.

resultsOf 2977 identified MHAs, 16 were included, showing average quality across the four main subscales (M = 3.25, SD = 0.68). Shortcomings were observed with regard to engagement (M = 2.87, SD = 0.99), potential therapeutic gain (M = 2.67, SD = 0.83), existing evidence base (25.0% of included MHAs were tested empirically), and documented privacy and security details. No significant correlations were found between user ratings and the overall total score of the MARS-G or MARS-G main subscales.

conclusionsAvailable MHAs for BPD vary in quality and evidence on their efficacy, effectiveness, and possible adverse events is scarce. More substantial efforts to ensure the quality of MHAs available for patients and a focus on transparency, particularly regarding privacy and security documentation, are necessary.

Indexed as

BPDIMIsInternet- and mobile-based interventionsQuality ratingTreatment

Identifiers

PMID35642024
PMCPMC9158356

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.