Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41756603›Full record

ArticleDigital health

The Mental Health Technology Assessment of Quality (MTAQ): Development of a novel quality assurance framework for digital mental health tools.

Chris Attoe, Raul Szekely, Marta Ortega Vega, Emma Browne, Rebecca Thomas, Cho Wing Tiffany Kwan, Polina Altchouler, Anushka De, Nina Hariharan, Geraldine Clay and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Chris AttoeSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5559-2697
Raul SzekelySchool of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8854-2546
Marta Ortega VegaSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2939-650X
Emma BrowneInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Rebecca ThomasInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1716-9964
Cho Wing Tiffany KwanSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Polina AltchoulerInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Anushka DeInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6915-1857
Nina HariharanInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Geraldine ClaySouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sarah OdoiSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5726-2456
Sean CrossSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Andrew DoeSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6023-6093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The rapid growth of digital mental health tools offers accessible support to a growing global population with mental health needs. However, concerns remain regarding their safety, efficacy, and overall quality, particularly for tools used outside formal healthcare settings. Limited regulation and non-specific quality frameworks exacerbate these issues, often overlooking key elements such as user experience and evidence-based practice. Objective: This study aimed to develop a comprehensive and pragmatic quality assurance framework for digital mental health tools, tailored to the needs of UK stakeholders. Methods: A sequential mixed-methods design informed the development of the framework. Participants included mental health service users, academic and clinical professionals, and digital health experts. Survey data ( Results: Intuitive, accessible, user-centred design, strong data privacy and security measures, and robust evidence were identified as essential to quality assessment. These findings informed the development of MTAQ, which includes key domains and a structured process for evaluating tool quality. Conclusions: The MTAQ framework is among the first quality assurance frameworks specifically designed for digital mental health tools. By integrating research evidence with lived experience, clinical, academic, technical, and commercial input, this offers a user-informed, practical standard to guide the development, assessment, and improvement of digital mental health technologies.

Indexed as

data securityDigital mental healthevidencequality assuranceuser experience

Identifiers

PMID41756603
PMCPMC12932889

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.