Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39969824›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2025

Toward a New Conceptual Framework for Digital Mental Health Technologies: Scoping Review.

Gareth Hopkin, Holly Coole, Francesca Edelmann, Lynda Ayiku, Richard Branson, Paul Campbell, Sophie Cooper, Mark Salmon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

8 authors.

Gareth HopkinScience Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6860-7277
Holly CooleSoftware Team, Healthcare Quality and Access Group, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0003-4559-6450
Francesca EdelmannSoftware Team, Healthcare Quality and Access Group, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-1436-1274
Lynda AyikuScience Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8055-3873
Richard BransonSoftware Team, Healthcare Quality and Access Group, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-0684-4498
Paul CampbellSoftware Team, Healthcare Quality and Access Group, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9152-2127
Sophie CooperScience Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8379-6304
Mark SalmonScience Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7909-3769

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital mental health technologies (DMHTs) are becoming more widely available and are seen as having the potential to improve the quality of mental health care. However, conversations around the potential impact of DMHTs can be impacted by a lack of focus on the types of technologies that are available. Several frameworks that could apply to DMHTs are available, but they have not been developed with comprehensive methods and have limitations. Objective: To address limitations with current frameworks, we aimed to identify existing literature on the categorization of DMHTs, to explore challenges with categorizing DMHTs for specific purposes, and to develop a new conceptual framework. Methods: We used an iterative approach to develop the framework. First, we completed a rapid review of the literature to identify studies that provided domains that could be used to categorize DMHTs. Second, findings from this review and associated issues were discussed by an expert working group, including professionals from a wide range of relevant settings. Third, we synthesized findings to develop a new conceptual framework. Results: The rapid review identified 3603 unique results, and hand searching identified another 3 potentially relevant papers. Of these, 24 papers were eligible for inclusion, which provided 10 domains to categorize DMHTs. The expert working group proposed a broad framework and based on the findings of the review and group discussions, we developed a new conceptual framework with 8 domains that represent important characteristics of DMHTs. These 8 domains are population, setting, platform or system, purpose, type of approach, human interaction, human responsiveness, and functionality. Conclusions: This conceptual framework provides a structure for various stakeholders to define the key characteristics of DMHTs. It has been developed with more comprehensive methods than previous attempts with similar aims. The framework can facilitate communication within the field and could undergo further iteration to ensure it is appropriate for specific purposes.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyMental Health ServicesTelemedicineHumanscategorizationconceptualdigital healthdigital mental healtheHealthframeworkmental healthregulationreview methodologyreview methodssynthesissystematic

Identifiers

PMID39969824
PMCPMC11864090

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.