Scholarlink

<p>Despite mental health apps having a rigorous evidence base, little is known about the proportion of efficacious apps that are publicly available. Our systematic review and meta-analysis identified self-guided mental health apps evaluated in controlled trials, determined their public availability, and examined how evidence quality and strength influence availability. A literature search identified 16,971 records, of which 110 studies, investigating 112 apps, met inclusion criteria. Of the 81 unique self-guided apps, 42 (52%) were publicly available. Apps were most commonly available through both Apple App and Google Play Stores (79%) at no cost (40%). Study quality assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool had no significant association with app availability (<i>p</i> = 0.851). Meta-analysis found no significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.228) in effect size compared to control between available apps (g = 0.33) and unavailable apps (g = 0.45). Considerations apart from evidence quality or strength determine app translation highlighting a gap between evidence and availability.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Public availability of evidence-based mental health apps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-guided apps

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月16日

查看全文
  • Imogen H. Bell,
  • Jake Linardon,
  • Shaminka N. Mangelsdorf,
  • Mario Alvarez-Jimenez,
  • Lee Valentine,
  • Emily Eisner,
  • Kate A. Reynolds,
  • John Torous,
  • Inez Myin-Germeys,
  • Sandra Bucci,
  • David C. Mohr,
  • Ulrich Reininghaus,
  • Jennifer Nicholas

摘要

Despite mental health apps having a rigorous evidence base, little is known about the proportion of efficacious apps that are publicly available. Our systematic review and meta-analysis identified self-guided mental health apps evaluated in controlled trials, determined their public availability, and examined how evidence quality and strength influence availability. A literature search identified 16,971 records, of which 110 studies, investigating 112 apps, met inclusion criteria. Of the 81 unique self-guided apps, 42 (52%) were publicly available. Apps were most commonly available through both Apple App and Google Play Stores (79%) at no cost (40%). Study quality assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool had no significant association with app availability (p = 0.851). Meta-analysis found no significant difference (p = 0.228) in effect size compared to control between available apps (g = 0.33) and unavailable apps (g = 0.45). Considerations apart from evidence quality or strength determine app translation highlighting a gap between evidence and availability.