Steven Chan1, John Torous2,3, Ladson Hinton1, Peter Yellowlees1. 1. 1 Department of Psychiatry, University of California Davis , Sacramento, California. 2. 2 Harvard Longwood Psychiatry Residency Training Program, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts. 3. 3 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mobile phones are ubiquitous in society and owned by a majority of psychiatric patients, including those with severe mental illness. Their versatility as a platform can extend mental health services in the areas of communication, self-monitoring, self-management, diagnosis, and treatment. However, the efficacy and reliability of publicly available applications (apps) have yet to be demonstrated. Numerous articles have noted the need for rigorous evaluation of the efficacy and clinical utility of smartphone apps, which are largely unregulated. Professional clinical organizations do not provide guidelines for evaluating mobile apps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Guidelines and frameworks are needed to evaluate medical apps. Numerous frameworks and evaluation criteria exist from the engineering and informatics literature, as well as interdisciplinary organizations in similar fields such as telemedicine and healthcare informatics. RESULTS: We propose criteria for both patients and providers to use in assessing not just smartphone apps, but also wearable devices and smartwatch apps for mental health. Apps can be evaluated by their usefulness, usability, and integration and infrastructure. Apps can be categorized by their usability in one or more stages of a mental health provider's workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, leadership is needed to develop a framework for describing apps, and guidelines are needed for both patients and mental health providers.
INTRODUCTION: Mobile phones are ubiquitous in society and owned by a majority of psychiatricpatients, including those with severe mental illness. Their versatility as a platform can extend mental health services in the areas of communication, self-monitoring, self-management, diagnosis, and treatment. However, the efficacy and reliability of publicly available applications (apps) have yet to be demonstrated. Numerous articles have noted the need for rigorous evaluation of the efficacy and clinical utility of smartphone apps, which are largely unregulated. Professional clinical organizations do not provide guidelines for evaluating mobile apps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Guidelines and frameworks are needed to evaluate medical apps. Numerous frameworks and evaluation criteria exist from the engineering and informatics literature, as well as interdisciplinary organizations in similar fields such as telemedicine and healthcare informatics. RESULTS: We propose criteria for both patients and providers to use in assessing not just smartphone apps, but also wearable devices and smartwatch apps for mental health. Apps can be evaluated by their usefulness, usability, and integration and infrastructure. Apps can be categorized by their usability in one or more stages of a mental health provider's workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, leadership is needed to develop a framework for describing apps, and guidelines are needed for both patients and mental health providers.
Entities:
Keywords:
behavioral health; business administration/economics; e-health; mobile health; telepsychiatry
Authors: Jennifer Dahne; C W Lejuez; Vanessa A Diaz; Marty S Player; Jacob Kustanowitz; Julia W Felton; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Behav Ther Date: 2018-12-19
Authors: Jennifer Dahne; Anahi Collado; C W Lejuez; Cristina M Risco; Vanessa A Diaz; Lisa Coles; Jacob Kustanowitz; Michael J Zvolensky; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Derek D Satre; Meredith C Meacham; Lauren D Asarnow; Weston S Fisher; Lisa R Fortuna; Esti Iturralde Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2021-10-15
Authors: Anna Huguet; Sanjay Rao; Patrick J McGrath; Lori Wozney; Mike Wheaton; Jill Conrod; Sharlene Rozario Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.240