Standalone smartphone apps for mental health—a systematic review and meta-analysis

By Kiona K. Weisel, Lukas M Fuhrmann, Matthias Berking, Harald Baumeister, Pim Cuijpers, David Daniel Ebert. npj Digital Medicine, 2019

367 citations recorded by the source corpus.

While smartphone usage is ubiquitous, and the app market for smartphone apps targeted at mental health is growing rapidly, the evidence of standalone apps for treating mental health symptoms is still unclear. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of standalone smartphone apps for mental health. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in February 2018 on randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of standalone apps for mental health in adults with heightened symptom severity, compared to a control group. A random-effects model was employed. When insufficient comparisons were available, data was presented in a narrative synthesis. Outcomes included assessments of mental health disorder symptom severity specifically targeted at by the app. In total, 5945 records were identified and 165 full-text articles were screened for inclusion by two independent researchers. Nineteen trials with 3681 participants were included in the analysis: depression (k = 6), anxiety (k = 4), substance use (k = 5), self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (k = 4), PTSD (k = 2), and sleep problems (k = 2). Effects on depression (Hedges’ g = 0.33, 95%CI 0.10–0.57, P = 0.005, NNT = 5.43, I2 = 59%) and on smoking behavior (g = 0.39, 95%CI 0.21–0.57, NNT = 4.59, P ≤ 0.001, I2 = 0%) were significant. No significant pooled effects were found for anxiety, suicidal ideation, self-injury, or alcohol use (g = −0.14 to 0.18). Effect sizes for single trials ranged from g = −0.05 to 0.14 for PTSD and g = 0.72 to 0.84 for insomnia. Although some trials showed potential of apps targeting mental health symptoms, using smartphone apps as standalone psychological interventions cannot be recommended based on the current level of evidence.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bb95eb4cfdf9fb1e396dece5aca86d91d8f68ba3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

  1. J. Firth
  2. A. Parks
  3. John B. Torous
  4. D. Chan

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

  1. A. Parks
  2. John B. Torous
  3. D. Chan

Citations in the corpus