ArticleBMJ open2025
Validation and selection of criteria for evaluating apps for managing depression: a Delphi study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite a lack of evidence relating to effectiveness and safety, the use of apps in the field of mental health is increasing due to their ease of use and accessibility. The aim of the EvalDepApps project is to develop and validate an assessment tool for evaluating depression management apps based on scientific evidence, expert judgement and end-user needs.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the most relevant criteria for evaluating apps intended to manage depression through consensus-based assessment.
methodsA total of 43 individuals were invited to participate in an online modified Delphi study of 51 criteria identified from the literature. In Round 1, participants rated criteria according to relevance and three levels of consensus were defined: high level when ≥80% of respondents scored the criterion at 5 or 6; medium when 60%-79% of respondents scored the criterion at 5 or 6 and low when <60% of respondents scored the criterion at 5 or 6. In Round 2, participants were asked to re-rate criteria that had achieved the medium level of consensus in Round 1 under the same parameters. Comments by participants were collected and analysed. The final assessment list consisted of those criteria that had attained the maximum consensus in either round.
findingsThe response rate was 59.0% (26/43) in Round 1 and 53.4% (23/43) in Round 2. In Round 1, 24 criteria (47.1%) attained the maximum level of consensus, 20 (39.2%) the medium level and 7 (13.7%) the lowest level. In Round 2, 4 out of 20 criteria (20.0%) attained the maximum consensus. Participant comments reinforced the relevance of the selected criteria. The final list consisted of 28 criteria, the majority relating to
conclusionsBy prioritising criteria relating to data safety and clinical effectiveness, participants in this study emphasised that the assessment of apps for depression management must take both these aspects into full consideration. Despite some limitations of the study (eg, lack of participant sociodemographic data and its implications for generalisation, not face-to-face inter-round), the results of this study will enable the EvalDepApps project to develop an assessment tool for depression management apps that incorporates the most relevant criteria. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: EvalDepApps will support healthcare professionals and users in identifying safe, effective and user-friendly depression management apps.
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.