Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42133938›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2026

Adoption of Digital Mental Health Interventions in National Health Service England, Scotland, and Wales: Freedom of Information Questionnaire Study.

Lucy Hitcham, Aislinn Gómez Bergin, Sachiyo Ito-Jaeger, Stuart Reeves, Elvira Perez Vallejos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Lucy HitchamHorizon Centre for Doctoral Training, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2117-1936
Aislinn Gómez BerginSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4276-3466
Sachiyo Ito-JaegerMental Health & Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9664-7797
Stuart ReevesSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7145-3320
Elvira Perez VallejosMental Health & Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0258-9440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have been widely promoted to improve access to mental health care within the UK National Health Service (NHS), particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2015, a total of 48 technologies were reportedly used in NHS services in England, but over the past decade, substantial changes to regulatory requirements, evidence standards, and procurement processes have reshaped the digital mental health landscape. There is limited clarity regarding which DMHIs are currently being formally procured and funded by NHS mental health services across the United Kingdom.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify and describe the DMHIs currently procured, contracted, or paid for by NHS mental health service providers in England, Scotland, and Wales for adult common mental health problems and to compare current procurement practices with findings reported in 2015.

methodsFreedom of Information requests were submitted to all NHS mental health trusts in England and all health boards in Scotland and Wales. Responses were collated and screened to provide an updated and extended record of which technologies are reportedly procured or paid for by services.

resultsIn total, 19 different DMHIs were identified as being procured across mental health service providers for adult common mental health problems at the time of data collection. This demonstrates a substantial reduction in the number of technologies being adopted into practice compared to the 48 reported in England in 2015. The findings reveal several key insights, including that only 2 technologies have remained in use for a decade, and they shed light on the types of technologies being selected and the variations in procurement practices among the 3 national health services.

conclusionsDespite the expansion of the digital mental health marketplace, the number of DMHIs formally procured by NHS mental health services has markedly decreased over the past decade. This consolidation may reflect increased selectivity and the adoption of higher-quality products, driven by strengthened regulatory oversight, evidence standards, and national guidance. Although these developments may enhance safety and quality assurance, they also raise important questions about innovation, market sustainability, and equitable access to digital mental health care. Ongoing monitoring of procurement practices is needed to inform policy, service design, and the future development of DMHIs.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesState MedicineDigital HealthDigital MediaEnglandHumansScotlandSurveys and QuestionnairesWalesdigitaldigital therapeuticshealth caremental health servicesNational Health ServiceUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID42133938
PMCPMC13219984

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.