Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental health applications hold great promise as interventions for addressing common mental issues. Although many people with mental health issues use mobile app interventions, their adherence level remains low. Low engagement affects the effectiveness of mobile interventions. However, there is still a dearth of research to explain the reasons for low engagement. User experience and usability are two factors that determine the adoption and usage of apps. Analyzing user reviews of mobile apps for mental health issues reveals user experience and what features users liked and disliked in the apps and hence informs future app design and refinements. This research aims to analyze user reviews of publicly available mental health applications to uncover their strengths, weaknesses, and gaps, hence revealing why users are likely to cease using these applications. We mined reviews of 106 mental health apps retrieved from Apple's App Store and Google Play and employed thematic analysis on 13,549 reviews. The review analysis shows that users placed more emphasis on the user interface and the user-friendliness of the app. Users also appreciated apps that present them with a variety of options, functionalities, and content that they can choose. Again, apps that offer adaptive functionalities that allow users to adapt some app features also received high ratings. In contrast, poor usability emerged as the most common reason for abandoning mental health apps. Other pitfalls include lack of a content variety, lack of personalization, lack of customer service and trust, and security and privacy issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".