Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36149733›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Comparing Professional and Consumer Ratings of Mental Health Apps: Mixed Methods Study.

Georgie Hudson, Esther Negbenose, Martha Neary, Sonja M Jansli, Stephen M Schueller, Til Wykes, Sagar Jilka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Georgie HudsonInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5002-4890
Esther NegbenoseInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2332-8282
Martha NearyDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1253-3459
Sonja M JansliInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1694-8328
Stephen M SchuellerDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-0399
Til WykesInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-8003
Sagar JilkaInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1578-9350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the number of mental health apps has grown, increasing efforts have been focused on establishing quality tailored reviews. These reviews prioritize clinician and academic views rather than the views of those who use them, particularly those with lived experiences of mental health problems. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased reliance on web-based and mobile mental health support, understanding the views of those with mental health conditions is of increasing importance.

objectiveThis study aimed to understand the opinions of people with mental health problems on mental health apps and how they differ from established ratings by professionals.

methodsA mixed methods study was conducted using a web-based survey administered between December 2020 and April 2021, assessing 11 mental health apps. We recruited individuals who had experienced mental health problems to download and use 3 apps for 3 days and complete a survey. The survey consisted of the One Mind PsyberGuide Consumer Review Questionnaire and 2 items from the Mobile App Rating Scale (star and recommendation ratings from 1 to 5). The consumer review questionnaire contained a series of open-ended questions, which were thematically analyzed and using a predefined protocol, converted into binary (positive or negative) ratings, and compared with app ratings by professionals and star ratings from app stores.

resultsWe found low agreement between the participants' and professionals' ratings. More than half of the app ratings showed disagreement between participants and professionals (198/372, 53.2%). Compared with participants, professionals gave the apps higher star ratings (3.58 vs 4.56) and were more likely to recommend the apps to others (3.44 vs 4.39). Participants' star ratings were weakly positively correlated with app store ratings (r=0.32, P=.01). Thematic analysis found 11 themes, including issues of user experience, ease of use and interactivity, privacy concerns, customization, and integration with daily life. Participants particularly valued certain aspects of mental health apps, which appear to be overlooked by professional reviewers. These included functions such as the ability to track and measure mental health and providing general mental health education. The cost of apps was among the most important factors for participants. Although this is already considered by professionals, this information is not always easily accessible.

conclusionsAs reviews on app stores and by professionals differ from those by people with lived experiences of mental health problems, these alone are not sufficient to provide people with mental health problems with the information they desire when choosing a mental health app. App rating measures must include the perspectives of mental health service users to ensure ratings represent their priorities. Additional work should be done to incorporate the features most important to mental health service users into mental health apps.

Indexed as

appscoproductiondigitalmental healthmHealthmobile healthmobile phonepatient and public involvementservice usertechnologywell-being

Identifiers

PMID36149733
PMCPMC9547331

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.