Research Paper On Mental Health

Research Paper On Mental Health-49
Three hundred and fifty apps were screened for eligibility – representing the top 40 ranked apps in each search, except where fewer i OS apps were returned for schizophrenia, self-harm and substance use.

Three hundred and fifty apps were screened for eligibility – representing the top 40 ranked apps in each search, except where fewer i OS apps were returned for schizophrenia, self-harm and substance use.

The majority of apps (59/73, 81%) described a single mental health-related functionality; fewer apps described two (8/73, 11%) or three (3/73, 4.1%) discrete functions.

Three apps did not clearly describe any specific functionality (3/73, 4.1%).

“evidence-based treatment”); specific scientific methods or techniques were identified for 24 apps (§4.a.i, 24/73, 33%) – full details of the annotated techniques are described later.

Notably only two apps (§4.a.ii, 2/73, 2.7%) described direct evidence associated with the app (a description of a pilot study reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression, and data indicating users regularly report feeling better after using the app), and only one app (§4.a.iii, 1/73, 1.4%) provided citation details to scientific literature (a validation paper associated with a self-report questionnaire).

Seventy-three apps were coded, and the majority (64%) claimed effectiveness at diagnosing a mental health condition, or improving symptoms, mood or self-management.

Scientific language was most frequently used to support these effectiveness claims (44%), although this included techniques not validated by literature searches (8/24 = 33%).Forty-seven apps (§4, 47/73, 64%) also provided some form of statement supporting use of the app (although this is the same number as provided claims of effectiveness, this represents a different, but overlapping, set of apps).The most common form of support was the use of scientific language (§4.a, 32/73, 44%), although eight of these apps used general terms (e.g.A preliminary investigation by the authors previously reported that, for apps clinically relevant for depression, 38% of app store descriptions included wording related to claims of effectiveness, whereas only 2.6% provided evidence to substantiate such claims.This study aims to extend this preliminary analysis to further understand how scientific evidence is currently used to market and sell mental health apps by (i) examining the types of claims made by mental health apps and, specifically, estimating the proportion of apps that invoke claims of effectiveness; (ii) describing the types of supporting statements used to justify claims and, specifically, estimating the proportion of apps which invoke scientific principles; and (iii) assessing the credibility of scientific principles that are used as supporting statements.A subset of eight apps (8/73, 11%) claimed both improvements in self-management and symptoms.Just under one-third of apps (§5, 22/73, 30%) included some form of disclaimer – either a medical disclaimer (§5.a, 20/73, 27%) or less commonly a legal disclaimer (§5.b, 8/73, 11%).Insight into methods used to present apps on commercial stores has the potential to inform government and professional efforts to establish curated libraries for health apps, as well as develop our understanding of translational gaps between m Health research and developer practices.A total of 1435 apps were identified through searches of the app stores (see Table 1).Reviews of the quality of the content within publicly available health apps support this disparity, reporting that the majority of consumer-available apps are not evidence-based and can contain harmful content.Although there is an increasing interest in accreditation processes, In this setting, marketing materials provided by developers are a principal source of information to inform consumer or clinician choice.

SHOW COMMENTS

Comments Research Paper On Mental Health

The Latest from chelbiki.ru ©