Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 1;5(12):e2248784.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.48784.

Assessment of Mental Health Services Available Through Smartphone Apps

Erica Camacho  1 , Asher Cohen  1 , John Torous  1
Affiliations

Assessment of Mental Health Services Available Through Smartphone Apps

Erica Camacho et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: As more patients and clinicians are turning to mental health smartphone apps to expand access to services, little is known about the current state of the app marketplaces and what these apps are actually offering in terms of features, privacy, price, and services.

Objective: To assess the current state of mental health apps, explore the association between app privacy scores and popularity as measured by star ratings and downloads, and to understand opportunities and challenges facing the commercial app landscape.

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study had trained raters using the public-facing M-Health Index and Navigation Database (MIND) to assess and review 578 mental health apps. The sample of apps used in this analysis were pulled from MIND and include apps across various conditions including schizophrenia, eating disorders, sleep, and more. Analysis of these apps was conducted in June 2022.

Exposures: There were 578 mental health apps rated across 105 dimensions derived from the American Psychiatric Association's app evaluation framework.

Main outcomes and measures: App raters assessed each app across 6 categories: (1) app origin and accessibility, (2) privacy and security, (3) clinical foundation, (4) features and engagement, (5) inputs and outputs, and (6) interoperability. Privacy scores were determined by 5 MIND criteria, including (1) having a privacy policy, (2) reporting security measures in place, (3) declaring data use and purpose, (4) allowing for the deletion of data, and (5) allowing users to opt out of data collection. Correlations between privacy scores and popularity metrics (star ratings and number of downloads) were measured.

Results: This study included 578 mental health apps that were identified, assessed, and analyzed across 105 MIND dimensions. Psychoeducation, goal setting, and mindfulness were among the top app features. Of the 578 apps analyzed, 443 (77%) had a privacy policy. This analysis of apps with a privacy policy revealed that there was no statistically significant correlation between privacy scores and Apple App Store (r = 0.058, P = .29) or Google Play Store star ratings (r = 0.041; P = .48). The number of app downloads on the Google Play Store, however, was weakly correlated with privacy scores (χ25 = 22.1; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of mental health apps, findings indicate that the current app marketplaces primarily offered basic features such as psychoeducation, goal tracking, and mindfulness but fewer innovative features such as biofeedback or specialized therapies. Privacy challenges remained common, and app popularity metrics provided little help in identifying apps with more privacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Torous reported being a Web editor for JAMA Psychiatry and a stockholder in Precision Mental Wellness. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. App Features Offered in M-Health Index and Navigation Database (MIND) From Most Common to Least Common
iCBT indicates Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Comparison of Google Play Store Star Ratings and Privacy Scores (N = 305)
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Comparison of Apple App Store Star Ratings and Privacy Scores (N = 340)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Torous J, Jän Myrick K, Rauseo-Ricupero N, Firth J. Digital mental health and COVID-19: using technology today to accelerate the curve on access and quality tomorrow. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(3):e18848. doi:10.2196/18848 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alon N, Stern AD, Torous J. Assessing the Food and Drug Administration’s risk-based framework for software precertification with top health apps in the United States: quality improvement study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(10):e20482. doi:10.2196/20482 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ramos G, Ponting C, Labao JP, Sobowale K. Considerations of diversity, equity, and inclusion in mental health apps: a scoping review of evaluation frameworks. Behav Res Ther. 2021;147:103990. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2021.103990 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mackey R, Gleason A, Ciulla R. A novel method for evaluating mobile apps (app rating inventory): development study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10(4):e32643. doi:10.2196/32643 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lagan S, Aquino P, Emerson MR, Fortuna K, Walker R, Torous J. Actionable health app evaluation: translating expert frameworks into objective metrics. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3(1):100. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00312-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types