ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2020
Clinician's Guide to Evaluating and Developing eHealth Interventions for Mental Health.
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Psychological eHealth Interventions for Patients With Cardiovascular Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- eHealth Interventions to Treat Substance Use in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Brief online negative affect focused functional imagery training (FIT) improves four-week drinking outcomes in hazardous student drinkers: A pilot randomised controlled trial replication in South Africa.Addictive behaviors reports · 2024Article
- Lessons Learned: Providing Supportive Accountability in an Online Anxiety Intervention.Behavior therapy · 2022Article
- Digital Mental Health Services: Moving From Promise to Results.Cognitive and behavioral practice · 2022Article
- Evaluating evaluation frameworks: a scoping review of frameworks for assessing health apps.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Digital health developments and drawbacks: a review and analysis of top-returned apps for bipolar disorder.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This review aimed to examine key information regarding technology-delivered interventions for patients with mental health and/or substance use disorders and to provide support for efforts by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in recommending applications or helping to develop new technology-delivered interventions. Methods: The authors reviewed existing information about the appraisal, development, and evaluation of technology-delivered interventions (eHealth interventions). Results: High-level guidance is available for clinicians who want to evaluate eHealth applications for their patients. Clinicians should be familiar with existing models of eHealth intervention development and with traditional as well as unique elements in the evaluation of efficacy for these approaches. However, existing intervention development models have not been empirically validated, and only one includes empirical optimization as an inherent part of its process. Conclusions: Because of the proliferation of eHealth interventions, mental health professionals should bring to this area the same level of content knowledge, understanding of development and evaluation processes, and rigorous skepticism as they do for pharmacotherapy and therapist-delivered behavioral interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.