ArticleBMC health services research2025
Framework to Assist Stakeholders in Technology Evaluation for Recovery (FASTER) to Mental Health and Wellness.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- GerenciaVida: Validity Evidence of a Mobile Application for Suicide Behavior Management.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental health mobile applications (apps) have the potential to expand the provision of mental health and wellness services to underserved populations. There is a lack of guidance on how to choose wisely from the thousands of mental health apps without clear evidence of safety, efficacy, and consumer protections. We propose the Framework to Assist Stakeholders in Technology Evaluation for Recovery (FASTER) to Mental Health and Wellness to support agencies and individuals working in mental health, as well as users of mental health apps, in making informed decisions recommending the use of, or using mental health and wellness apps. The framework was developed through a systematic process including a review of existing frameworks and the literature, interviews with key informants, public stakeholder feedback, and iterative application and refinement of the framework to 45 apps. It comprises three sections: Section 1. Risks and Mitigation Strategies, assesses the integrity and risk profile of the app; Section 2. Function, focuses on descriptive aspects related to accessibility, costs, developer credibility, evidence and clinical foundation, privacy/security, usability, functions for remote monitoring of the user, access to crisis services, and artificial intelligence (AI); and Section 3. Mental Health App Features focuses on specific mental health app features, such as journaling and mood tracking. The framework facilitates an assessment of the level of risk posed by the app against the evidence on the effectiveness of the app and its safety features, recognizing that given vast variations in health apps, a 'one size fits all' approach is likely to be insufficient. Future application, testing, and refinements may be required to determine the framework's suitability and reliability across multiple mental health conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.