Michelle M Ng1, Joseph Firth1, Mia Minen1, John Torous1. 1. Division of Digital Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Ng, Torous); National Institute of Complementary Medicine Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, and Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (Firth); Headache Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York (Minen).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the potential benefits of mobile mental health apps, real-world results indicate engagement issues because of low uptake and sustained use. This review examined how studies have measured and reported on user engagement indicators (UEIs) for mental health apps. METHODS: A systematic review of multiple databases was performed in July 2018 for studies of mental health apps for depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety that reported on UEIs, namely usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, and feasibility. The subjective and objective criteria used to assess UEIs, among other data, were extracted from each study. RESULTS: Of 925 results, 40 studies were eligible. Every study reported positive results for the usability, satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility of the app. Of the 40 studies, 36 (90%) employed 371 indistinct subjective criteria that were assessed with surveys, interviews, or both, and 23 studies used custom subjective scales, rather than preexisting standardized assessment tools. A total of 25 studies (63%) used objective criteria-with 71 indistinct measures. No two studies used the same combination of subjective or objective criteria to assess UEIs of the app. CONCLUSIONS: The high heterogeneity and use of custom criteria to assess mental health apps in terms of usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility present a challenge for understanding real-world low uptake of these apps. Every study reviewed claimed that UEIs for the app were rated highly, which suggests a need for the field to focus on engagement by creating reporting standards and more carefully considering claims.
OBJECTIVE: Despite the potential benefits of mobile mental health apps, real-world results indicate engagement issues because of low uptake and sustained use. This review examined how studies have measured and reported on user engagement indicators (UEIs) for mental health apps. METHODS: A systematic review of multiple databases was performed in July 2018 for studies of mental health apps for depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety that reported on UEIs, namely usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, and feasibility. The subjective and objective criteria used to assess UEIs, among other data, were extracted from each study. RESULTS: Of 925 results, 40 studies were eligible. Every study reported positive results for the usability, satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility of the app. Of the 40 studies, 36 (90%) employed 371 indistinct subjective criteria that were assessed with surveys, interviews, or both, and 23 studies used custom subjective scales, rather than preexisting standardized assessment tools. A total of 25 studies (63%) used objective criteria-with 71 indistinct measures. No two studies used the same combination of subjective or objective criteria to assess UEIs of the app. CONCLUSIONS: The high heterogeneity and use of custom criteria to assess mental health apps in terms of usability, user satisfaction, acceptability, or feasibility present a challenge for understanding real-world low uptake of these apps. Every study reviewed claimed that UEIs for the app were rated highly, which suggests a need for the field to focus on engagement by creating reporting standards and more carefully considering claims.
Authors: Steven Chan; Haley Godwin; Alvaro Gonzalez; Peter M Yellowlees; Donald M Hilty Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Dror Ben-Zeev; Rachel M Brian; Geneva Jonathan; Lisa Razzano; Nicole Pashka; Elizabeth Carpenter-Song; Robert E Drake; Emily A Scherer Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Eric Kuhn; Carolyn Greene; Julia Hoffman; Tam Nguyen; Laura Wald; Janet Schmidt; Kelly M Ramsey; Josef Ruzek Journal: Mil Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Joseph Firth; John Torous; Jennifer Nicholas; Rebekah Carney; Abhishek Pratap; Simon Rosenbaum; Jerome Sarris Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: K E A Saunders; A C Bilderbeck; P Panchal; L Z Atkinson; J R Geddes; G M Goodwin Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: Mia T Minen; Kaitlyn Morio; Kathryn Berlin Schaubhut; Scott W Powers; Richard B Lipton; Elizabeth Seng Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 6.292
Authors: Mia T Minen; Sarah Corner; Thomas Berk; Valeriya Levitan; Steven Friedman; Samrachana Adhikari; Elizabeth B Seng Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Marie-Camille Patoz; Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei; Bruno Pereira; Olivier Blanc; Ingrid de Chazeron; Andrea Murru; Norma Verdolini; Isabella Pacchiarotti; Eduard Vieta; Pierre-Michel Llorca; Ludovic Samalin Journal: Int J Bipolar Disord Date: 2021-06-03
Authors: John Torous; Sandra Bucci; Imogen H Bell; Lars V Kessing; Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Pauline Whelan; Andre F Carvalho; Matcheri Keshavan; Jake Linardon; Joseph Firth Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: César G Escobar-Viera; Luca C Cernuzzi; Rebekah S Miller; Hugo J Rodríguez-Marín; Eduard Vieta; Magalí González Toñánez; Lisa A Marsch; Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei Journal: Int Rev Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-09
Authors: Elizabeth C Harris; Christine A Conelea; Michael T Shyne; Gail A Bernstein Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Bianca Raffaelli; Jasper Mecklenburg; Lucas Hendrik Overeem; Simon Scholler; Markus A Dahlem; Tobias Kurth; Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves; Uwe Reuter; Lars Neeb Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 4.773