Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36576737›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Assessment of Mental Health Services Available Through Smartphone Apps.

Erica Camacho, Asher Cohen, John Torous

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. A longitudinal analysis of quality and longevity of mental health apps indexed in MIND, the largest database.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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.

Erica CamachoDepartment of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Asher CohenDepartment of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
John TorousDepartment of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: As more patients and clinicians are turning to mental health smartphone apps to expand access to services, little is known about the current state of the app marketplaces and what these apps are actually offering in terms of features, privacy, price, and services. Objective: To assess the current state of mental health apps, explore the association between app privacy scores and popularity as measured by star ratings and downloads, and to understand opportunities and challenges facing the commercial app landscape. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study had trained raters using the public-facing M-Health Index and Navigation Database (MIND) to assess and review 578 mental health apps. The sample of apps used in this analysis were pulled from MIND and include apps across various conditions including schizophrenia, eating disorders, sleep, and more. Analysis of these apps was conducted in June 2022. Exposures: There were 578 mental health apps rated across 105 dimensions derived from the American Psychiatric Association's app evaluation framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: App raters assessed each app across 6 categories: (1) app origin and accessibility, (2) privacy and security, (3) clinical foundation, (4) features and engagement, (5) inputs and outputs, and (6) interoperability. Privacy scores were determined by 5 MIND criteria, including (1) having a privacy policy, (2) reporting security measures in place, (3) declaring data use and purpose, (4) allowing for the deletion of data, and (5) allowing users to opt out of data collection. Correlations between privacy scores and popularity metrics (star ratings and number of downloads) were measured. Results: This study included 578 mental health apps that were identified, assessed, and analyzed across 105 MIND dimensions. Psychoeducation, goal setting, and mindfulness were among the top app features. Of the 578 apps analyzed, 443 (77%) had a privacy policy. This analysis of apps with a privacy policy revealed that there was no statistically significant correlation between privacy scores and Apple App Store (r = 0.058, P = .29) or Google Play Store star ratings (r = 0.041; P = .48). The number of app downloads on the Google Play Store, however, was weakly correlated with privacy scores (χ25 = 22.1; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of mental health apps, findings indicate that the current app marketplaces primarily offered basic features such as psychoeducation, goal tracking, and mindfulness but fewer innovative features such as biofeedback or specialized therapies. Privacy challenges remained common, and app popularity metrics provided little help in identifying apps with more privacy.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesMobile ApplicationsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMental HealthSmartphoneUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36576737
PMCPMC9857226

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.