ArticleJMIR mental health2026
Strength of Evidence to Support Decision-Making on the Use of Digital Mental Health Technologies in NICE Evaluations: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Studies.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital mental health technologies (DMHTs) are playing an increasing role in mental health services. The quality of evidence for DMHTs is variable, and there are concerns that evidence is not sufficient to support decision-making. Objective: This study used a cross-sectional analysis of evidence supporting DMHTs included in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluations to examine the strength of evidence available for decision-making. Methods: We identified all NICE evaluations relating to DMHTs by reviewing details of published NICE evaluations on the NICE website. From each of these evaluations, we identified included DMHTs and reviewed committee documentation to identify studies that provided supporting evidence for each of these technologies. We extracted information on a series of items relating to study quality and summarized the characteristics of evidence both at the level of individual studies and across the package of evidence from multiple studies supporting DMHTs. We also identified key evidence gaps in available evidence. Results: We included nine NICE evaluations relating to anxiety, depression, psychosis, insomnia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and tic disorders. These evaluations included 30 DMHTs and referenced 78 supporting studies. We identified common evidence gaps relating to effectiveness compared to relevant comparators, use of appropriate outcomes, including health-related quality of life, cost of delivery, and impact on resource use, and reporting of adverse events. Conclusions: Our study highlights that some DMHTs have been supported by high-quality studies and that evidence to support DMHTs is likely to be developed across a series of studies. However, there are often key evidence gaps that need to be addressed to provide a stronger case for adoption. Developers should ensure that they consider these gaps while planning evidence generation, and where possible, address them earlier in the product lifecycle.
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.