SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Evaluating Characteristics and Quality of Mental Health Apps Available in App Stores for Indian Users: Systematic App Search and Review.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital mental health apps for young people in Europe: A systematic cross-country analysis.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Mobile-Based Ecological Momentary Interventions for Grief in China and Switzerland: Protocol for a Collaborative and Iterative Qualitative App Development Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Minimally Guided App-Based Intervention for Nontreatment-Seeking Psychologically Distressed Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Addendum: Evaluating Characteristics and Quality of Mental Health Apps Available in App Stores for Indian Users: Systematic App Search and Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Technology for Mental Health: Reflections on Scope and Future Directions in Institutes of Higher Education in India.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Article
- Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Mental Health Apps: Ensuring Reliability and Patient Safety.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Authors' Reply: Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Mental Health Apps: Ensuring Reliability and Patient Safety.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mental health app sector in India is expanding rapidly, driven by increasing smartphone usage, growing internet penetration, the popularity of digital initiatives, and heightened recognition of mental health challenges in public discourse. This growth is also influenced by both supply- and demand-side barriers to seeking professional help and the rise of mental health tech startups. While digital mental health solutions provide scalable ways to address unmet needs, concerns persist regarding app quality, privacy, and safety due to rapid market expansion, regulatory challenges, and limited empirical research. We conducted a comprehensive and systematic review of smartphone-based mental health apps accessible to Indian users through app stores.
objectiveThis study aims to describe apps in terms of characteristics such as the nature of their functions, involvement of mental health professionals in development, reference to an empirical basis, and inclusion of nudges to seek professional help, as well as to evaluate app quality.
methodsThis systematic review of mental health apps was conducted using the TECH (Target user, Evaluation focus, Connectedness, and Health domain) approach, along with the PASSR (Protocol for App Store Systematic Reviews) checklist. Fifteen search terms covering mental health conditions and therapies were applied to both Google Play and Apple App Store. Identified apps were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and subsequently downloaded for detailed review. Data were extracted based on prespecified parameters. Additionally, app quality was evaluated using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).
resultsThe initial search identified 5827 apps, of which 350 were reviewed in detail after removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria. Common search terms such as "depression" and "anxiety" yielded nearly a quarter of relevant apps (128/495, 25.9% to 133/497, 26.8%); 62 (17.7%) of the 350 reviewed apps originated from Asia, and 131 (37.4%) focused on a single mental health condition. Multifunction apps (eg, those combining assessment and intervention) constituted the largest category (230/350, 65.7%). Privacy concerns were notable; for example, 54 (15.4%) apps did not mention a data-sharing policy. Most apps were developed by commercial organizations, and 228 (65.1%) did not report involvement of mental health professionals, while 45 (12.9%) mentioned it only cursorily. Only 38 (10.9%) apps referenced empirical research, and more than half did not indicate an empirical basis for their content. Pointers to seek professional help were present in 139 (39.7%) apps, mostly in the form of disclaimers, whereas nudges or motivational prompts to seek help appeared in slightly less than a quarter. Only 105 (30%) apps attempted to dispel mental health myths. Functionality and aesthetics ratings on the MARS were relatively high, but 50 (14.3%) apps scored 3 or lower on the information subscale.
conclusionsThis study is among the first systematic evaluations of mental health apps accessible to Indian users on Google Play and Apple App Store. The findings provide insights to guide future research, app development, and policy making in the digital mental health space.
trial registrationInternational Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) INPLASY2024100035; https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-10-0035/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/71071.
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.