Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37812471›Full record

ReviewJMIR mental health2023

The Safety of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Recommendations.

Rayan Taher, Che-Wei Hsu, Chloe Hampshire, Carolina Fialho, Clare Heaysman, Daniel Stahl, Sukhi Shergill, Jenny Yiend

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Design, Implement, Sustain: Advancing Program-Led Interventions for Binge Eating, a Narrative Review.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rayan TaherPsychosis Studies Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8592-527X
Che-Wei HsuPsychosis Studies Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3297-3961
Chloe HampshireDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7272-3045
Carolina FialhoPsychosis Studies Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3777-3018
Clare HeaysmanLondon Institute for Healthcare Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7024-2830
Daniel StahlPsychosis Studies Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7987-6619
Sukhi ShergillKent and Medway Medical School, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4928-9100
Jenny YiendPsychosis Studies Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1967-6292
King's College London · GBMedway School of Pharmacy · GBUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V027484/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence suggests that digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) for common mental health conditions are effective. However, digital interventions, such as face-to-face therapies, pose risks to patients. A safe intervention is considered one in which the measured benefits outweigh the identified and mitigated risks.

objectiveThis study aims to review the literature to assess how DMHIs assess safety, what risks are reported, and how they are mitigated in both the research and postmarket phases and building on existing recommendations for assessing, reporting, and mitigating safety in the DMHI and standardizing practice.

methodsPsycINFO, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies that addressed the safety of DMHIs. The inclusion criteria were any study that addressed the safety of a clinical DMHI, even if not as a main outcome, in an adult population, and in English. As the outcome data were mainly qualitative in nature, a meta-analysis was not possible, and qualitative analysis was used to collate the results. Quantitative results were synthesized in the form of tables and percentages. To illustrate the use of a single common safety metric across studies, we calculated odds ratios and CIs, wherever possible.

resultsOverall, 23 studies were included in this review. Although many of the included studies assessed safety by actively collecting adverse event (AE) data, over one-third (8/23, 35%) did not assess or collect any safety data. The methods and frequency of safety data collection varied widely, and very few studies have performed formal statistical analyses. The main treatment-related reported AE was symptom deterioration. The main method used to mitigate risk was exclusion of high-risk groups. A secondary web-based search found that 6 DMHIs were available for users or patients to use (postmarket phase), all of which used indications and contraindications to mitigate risk, although there was no evidence of ongoing safety review.

conclusionsThe findings of this review show the need for a standardized classification of AEs, a standardized method for assessing AEs to statically analyze AE data, and evidence-based practices for mitigating risk in DMHIs, both in the research and postmarket phases. This review produced 7 specific, measurable, and achievable recommendations with the potential to have an immediate impact on the field, which were implemented across ongoing and future research. Improving the quality of DMHI safety data will allow meaningful assessment of the safety of DMHIs and confidence in whether the benefits of a new DMHI outweigh its risks.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022333181; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=333181.

Indexed as

adverse eventdigitaldigital therapeuticsharmmental healthmobile phonenegative effectspsychologicalriskrisk mitigationsafety

Identifiers

PMID37812471
PMCPMC10594135
OpenAlexW4383422265

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.