Assessing mental health apps marketplaces with objective metrics from 29,190 data points from 278 apps

• Published in: Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica 2021-08, Vol.144 (2), p.201-210
• Main Authors: Lagan, Sarah, D'Mello, Ryan, Vaidyam, Aditya, Bilden, Rebecca, Torous, John
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: apps; Benchmarking; Diaries; digital health; Humans; internet therapy; Mental Health; Mobile Applications; Mood
• ISSN: 0001-690X; 1600-0447
• DOI: 10.1111/acps.13306

Objective Utilizing a standard framework that may help clinicians and patients to identify relevant mental health apps, we sought to gain a comprehensive picture of the space by searching for, downloading, and reviewing 278 mental health apps from both the iOS and Android stores. Methods 278 mental health apps from the Apple iOS store and Google Play store were downloaded and reviewed in a standardized manner by trained app raters using a validated framework. Apps were evaluated with this framework comprising 105 questions and covering app origin and accessibility, privacy and security, inputs and outputs, clinical foundation, features and engagement style, and interoperability. Results Our results confirm that app stars and downloads—even for the most popular apps by these metrics—did not correlate with more clinically relevant metrics related to privacy/security, effectiveness, and engagement. Most mental health apps offer similar functionality, with 16.5% offering both mood tracking and journaling and 7% offering psychoeducation, deep breathing, mindfulness, journaling, and mood tracking. Only 36.4% of apps were updated with a 100‐day window, and 7.5% of apps had not been updated in four years. Conclusion Current app marketplace metrics commonly used to evaluate apps do not offer an accurate representation of individual apps or a comprehensive overview of the entire space. The majority of apps overlap in terms of features offered, with many domains and other features not well represented. Selecting an appropriate app continues to require personal matching given no clear trends or guidance offered by quantitative metrics alone.