The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps

John Torous, Joseph Firth, Kit Huckvale, Mark E. Larsen, Theodore D. Cosco, Rebekah Carney, Steven Chan, Abhishek Pratap, Peter Mackinlay Yellowlees, Til Wykes, Matcheri Keshavan, Helen Christensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

With over 10,000 mental health- and psychiatry-related smartphone apps available today and expanding, there is a need for reliable and valid evaluation of these digital tools. However, the updating and nonstatic nature of smartphone apps, expanding privacy concerns, varying degrees of usability, and evolving interoperability standards, among other factors, present serious challenges for app evaluation. In this article, we provide a narrative review of various schemes toward app evaluations, including commercial app store metrics, government initiatives, patient-centric approaches, point-based scoring, academic platforms, and expert review systems. We demonstrate that these different approaches toward app evaluation each offer unique benefits but often do not agree to each other and produce varied conclusions as to which apps are useful or not. Although there are no simple solutions, we briefly introduce a new initiative that aims to unify the current controversies in app elevation called CHART (Collaborative Health App Rating Teams), which will be further discussed in a second article in this series.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)662-666
Number of pages5
JournalThe Journal of nervous and mental disease
Volume206
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Consensus
Mental Health
Expert Systems
Privacy
Psychiatry
Health
Smartphone

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps. / Torous, John; Firth, Joseph; Huckvale, Kit; Larsen, Mark E.; Cosco, Theodore D.; Carney, Rebekah; Chan, Steven; Pratap, Abhishek; Yellowlees, Peter Mackinlay; Wykes, Til; Keshavan, Matcheri; Christensen, Helen.

In: The Journal of nervous and mental disease, Vol. 206, No. 8, 01.08.2018, p. 662-666.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Torous, J, Firth, J, Huckvale, K, Larsen, ME, Cosco, TD, Carney, R, Chan, S, Pratap, A, Yellowlees, PM, Wykes, T, Keshavan, M & Christensen, H 2018, 'The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps', The Journal of nervous and mental disease, vol. 206, no. 8, pp. 662-666. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000864
Torous, John ; Firth, Joseph ; Huckvale, Kit ; Larsen, Mark E. ; Cosco, Theodore D. ; Carney, Rebekah ; Chan, Steven ; Pratap, Abhishek ; Yellowlees, Peter Mackinlay ; Wykes, Til ; Keshavan, Matcheri ; Christensen, Helen. / The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps. In: The Journal of nervous and mental disease. 2018 ; Vol. 206, No. 8. pp. 662-666.
@article{bf888438f2c145b3b3beeb2af632854f,
title = "The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps",
abstract = "With over 10,000 mental health- and psychiatry-related smartphone apps available today and expanding, there is a need for reliable and valid evaluation of these digital tools. However, the updating and nonstatic nature of smartphone apps, expanding privacy concerns, varying degrees of usability, and evolving interoperability standards, among other factors, present serious challenges for app evaluation. In this article, we provide a narrative review of various schemes toward app evaluations, including commercial app store metrics, government initiatives, patient-centric approaches, point-based scoring, academic platforms, and expert review systems. We demonstrate that these different approaches toward app evaluation each offer unique benefits but often do not agree to each other and produce varied conclusions as to which apps are useful or not. Although there are no simple solutions, we briefly introduce a new initiative that aims to unify the current controversies in app elevation called CHART (Collaborative Health App Rating Teams), which will be further discussed in a second article in this series.",
author = "John Torous and Joseph Firth and Kit Huckvale and Larsen, {Mark E.} and Cosco, {Theodore D.} and Rebekah Carney and Steven Chan and Abhishek Pratap and Yellowlees, {Peter Mackinlay} and Til Wykes and Matcheri Keshavan and Helen Christensen",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/NMD.0000000000000864",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "206",
pages = "662--666",
journal = "Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease",
issn = "0022-3018",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Emerging Imperative for a Consensus Approach Toward the Rating and Clinical Recommendation of Mental Health Apps

AU - Torous, John

AU - Firth, Joseph

AU - Huckvale, Kit

AU - Larsen, Mark E.

AU - Cosco, Theodore D.

AU - Carney, Rebekah

AU - Chan, Steven

AU - Pratap, Abhishek

AU - Yellowlees, Peter Mackinlay

AU - Wykes, Til

AU - Keshavan, Matcheri

AU - Christensen, Helen

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - With over 10,000 mental health- and psychiatry-related smartphone apps available today and expanding, there is a need for reliable and valid evaluation of these digital tools. However, the updating and nonstatic nature of smartphone apps, expanding privacy concerns, varying degrees of usability, and evolving interoperability standards, among other factors, present serious challenges for app evaluation. In this article, we provide a narrative review of various schemes toward app evaluations, including commercial app store metrics, government initiatives, patient-centric approaches, point-based scoring, academic platforms, and expert review systems. We demonstrate that these different approaches toward app evaluation each offer unique benefits but often do not agree to each other and produce varied conclusions as to which apps are useful or not. Although there are no simple solutions, we briefly introduce a new initiative that aims to unify the current controversies in app elevation called CHART (Collaborative Health App Rating Teams), which will be further discussed in a second article in this series.

AB - With over 10,000 mental health- and psychiatry-related smartphone apps available today and expanding, there is a need for reliable and valid evaluation of these digital tools. However, the updating and nonstatic nature of smartphone apps, expanding privacy concerns, varying degrees of usability, and evolving interoperability standards, among other factors, present serious challenges for app evaluation. In this article, we provide a narrative review of various schemes toward app evaluations, including commercial app store metrics, government initiatives, patient-centric approaches, point-based scoring, academic platforms, and expert review systems. We demonstrate that these different approaches toward app evaluation each offer unique benefits but often do not agree to each other and produce varied conclusions as to which apps are useful or not. Although there are no simple solutions, we briefly introduce a new initiative that aims to unify the current controversies in app elevation called CHART (Collaborative Health App Rating Teams), which will be further discussed in a second article in this series.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047275974&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047275974&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000864

DO - 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000864

M3 - Article

C2 - 30020203

AN - SCOPUS:85047275974

VL - 206

SP - 662

EP - 666

JO - Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

JF - Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

SN - 0022-3018

IS - 8

ER -