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
Review
. 2023 Oct 9:10:e47433.
doi: 10.2196/47433.

The Safety of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Recommendations

Rayan Taher  1 , Che-Wei Hsu  1 , Chloe Hampshire  2 , Carolina Fialho  1 , Clare Heaysman  3 , Daniel Stahl  1 , Sukhi Shergill  4 , Jenny Yiend  1
Affiliations
Review

The Safety of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Recommendations

Rayan Taher et al. JMIR Ment Health. .

Abstract

Background: Evidence suggests that digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) for common mental health conditions are effective. However, digital interventions, such as face-to-face therapies, pose risks to patients. A safe intervention is considered one in which the measured benefits outweigh the identified and mitigated risks.

Objective: This study aims to review the literature to assess how DMHIs assess safety, what risks are reported, and how they are mitigated in both the research and postmarket phases and building on existing recommendations for assessing, reporting, and mitigating safety in the DMHI and standardizing practice.

Methods: PsycINFO, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies that addressed the safety of DMHIs. The inclusion criteria were any study that addressed the safety of a clinical DMHI, even if not as a main outcome, in an adult population, and in English. As the outcome data were mainly qualitative in nature, a meta-analysis was not possible, and qualitative analysis was used to collate the results. Quantitative results were synthesized in the form of tables and percentages. To illustrate the use of a single common safety metric across studies, we calculated odds ratios and CIs, wherever possible.

Results: Overall, 23 studies were included in this review. Although many of the included studies assessed safety by actively collecting adverse event (AE) data, over one-third (8/23, 35%) did not assess or collect any safety data. The methods and frequency of safety data collection varied widely, and very few studies have performed formal statistical analyses. The main treatment-related reported AE was symptom deterioration. The main method used to mitigate risk was exclusion of high-risk groups. A secondary web-based search found that 6 DMHIs were available for users or patients to use (postmarket phase), all of which used indications and contraindications to mitigate risk, although there was no evidence of ongoing safety review.

Conclusions: The findings of this review show the need for a standardized classification of AEs, a standardized method for assessing AEs to statically analyze AE data, and evidence-based practices for mitigating risk in DMHIs, both in the research and postmarket phases. This review produced 7 specific, measurable, and achievable recommendations with the potential to have an immediate impact on the field, which were implemented across ongoing and future research. Improving the quality of DMHI safety data will allow meaningful assessment of the safety of DMHIs and confidence in whether the benefits of a new DMHI outweigh its risks.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42022333181; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=333181.

Keywords: adverse event; digital; digital therapeutics; harm; mental health; mobile phone; negative effects; psychological; risk; risk mitigation; safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Meyerhoff J, Kruzan KP, Kim K-Y, Van Orden K, Mohr DC. Exploring the safety of a general digital mental health intervention to effect symptom reduction among individuals with and without suicidal ideation: a secondary analysis. Arch Suicide Res. 2023 Jul 12;27(3):966–83. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2022.2096520. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Batterham PJ, Christensen H, Calear AL, Werner-Seidler A, Kazan D. Rates and predictors of deterioration in a trial of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing suicidal thoughts. Arch Suicide Res. 2022 Nov 20;26(2):937–47. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2020.1848671. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Torous J, Bucci S, Bell IH, Kessing LV, Faurholt-Jepsen M, Whelan P, Carvalho AF, Keshavan M, Linardon J, Firth J. The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality. World Psychiatry. 2021 Oct;20(3):318–35. doi: 10.1002/wps.20883. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34505369 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Garety P, Ward T, Emsley R, Greenwood K, Freeman D, Fowler D, Kuipers E, Bebbington P, Dunn G, Hardy A. Digitally supported CBT to reduce paranoia and improve reasoning for people with schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis: the SlowMo RCT. Efficacy Mech Eval. 2021 Aug;8(11):1–90. doi: 10.3310/eme08110. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pharmacovigilance – how the MHRA monitors the safety of medicines. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. [2023-07-04]. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa... .