ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
Mental Health Apps Implemented in the Workplace: Scoping Review of Trends and Gaps in Evaluation Research.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adoption of App-Based Peer Support by Canadian Health Care Providers: Mixed Methods Organizational Implementation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technology-based solutions to support the mental health needs of workers are on the rise, as evidenced by the growing body of research related to e-mental health apps implemented with workers or within the context of workplaces. This expanding landscape of evidence related to mental health apps underscores the necessity of summarizing and consolidating the different ways in which studies are evaluating real-world technology-based interventions in a complex setting such as a workplace. Objective: The aim of this scoping review is to summarize the growing body of evidence evaluating mental health apps with workers. Specific research questions include "What types of mental health apps are studied?" "With whom are they being evaluated?" and "What outcomes are being tracked with what tools?" Methods: The scoping review followed 5 stages: specifying the research question, identifying relevant literature, selecting studies, extracting data, and synthesizing the findings. The search strategy was applied across 6 databases (PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, OVID Healthstar, and OVID Emcare) to identify relevant studies from January 2000 to August 2023. Results: From the 288 abstracts screened, 54 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Over two-thirds of the studies were randomized controlled trials. The studies included 44 different apps, comprising 23 structured self-guided apps, 15 unstructured self-guided apps, and 6 apps designed as adjuncts to other interventions. Evaluation approaches included examining user engagement and utilization, investigating the impact on users, and evaluating the implementation process. Most studies evaluated the impact on individual mental health-related outcomes as well as workplace-related outcomes. Conclusions: This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the ways in which studies are currently evaluating workplace mental health apps. The review highlights key trends and gaps in the existing research, noting that most studies focus on the effects of mental health apps on individual users, while only a limited number of studies explore how implementing such dynamic interventions within complex real-world settings (eg, workplaces) may influence their overall effectiveness. Future research should explore the implementation process to identify factors that promote and/or hinder the optimal use and impact of mental health apps for workers.
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.