Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39933815›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

Smartphone apps for mental health: systematic review of the literature and five recommendations for clinical translation.

Aljawharah Almuqrin, Ryan Hammoud, Ilham Terbagou, Stefania Tognin, Andrea Mechelli

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Digital health tools in the management of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors.

Aljawharah Almuqrin *Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Ryan Hammoud *Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK ryan.hammoud@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0848-0753
Ilham TerbagouDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Stefania TogninDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Andrea MechelliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesProviding adequate access to mental health services is a global challenge. Smartphone apps offer a potentially cost-effective, available and accessible solution for monitoring, supporting and treating mental health conditions. This systematic review describes and evaluates the usage of smartphone apps across a wide range of mental health disorders in terms of clinical effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability.

designThis is a systematic review of studies examining treatment, self-monitoring and multipurpose smartphone apps for mental health disorders. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of the Ovid and PubMed databases. Articles published up to 14 January 2024 were included based on predefined criteria. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared mental health apps (single- or multipurpose) with treatment-as-usual or no treatment for clinical populations with mental health disorders. Studies were excluded if they focused on web-based interventions, combined apps with non-TAU treatments or targeted physical health apps. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened and selected studies, with a third reviewer resolving inconsistencies. Extracted data included study details, participant characteristics, app information and outcome measures related to effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability. A risk-of-bias assessment for each study was conducted.

resultsOut of 4153 non-duplicate articles screened, 31 studies met full-text eligibility criteria. These included 6 studies on treatment apps, 4 on self-monitoring apps and 21 on multipurpose apps for a range of mental health disorders. Fifteen were identified as having between some and high concern on the risk-of-bias assessment. While smartphone apps were generally effective and acceptable, their feasibility appeared to decline over time.

conclusionsSmartphone apps are promising tools for mental healthcare, demonstrating effectiveness and acceptability. However, challenges such as reduced feasibility over time, potential biases and underrepresented demographics require further research. This review proposes five recommendations for improving clinical translation in future studies.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesMobile ApplicationsSmartphoneHumansMental HealthTelemedicineTranslational Research, BiomedicalDepression & mood disordersMENTAL HEALTHPSYCHIATRYSchizophrenia & psychotic disorders

Identifiers

PMID39933815
PMCPMC11815452

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.