MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386084190 · doi:10.2196/46949

Mobile Technologies for Supporting Mental Health in Youths: Scoping Review of Effectiveness, Limitations, and Inclusivity

2023· article· en· W4386084190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shannon Grace Litke, Annie W. Resnikoff, Ashley Anil, Meredith Montgomery, Rishabh Matta, Jina Huh, Brian P. Daly

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthPsychological interventionMental healthInclusion (mineral)Mobile technologyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedical educationMedicineMobile deviceInternet privacyWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, there has been growing support for the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve the availability of mental health interventions. While mHealth is a promising tool for improving access to interventions, research on the effectiveness and efficacy of mHealth apps for youths is limited, particularly for underrepresented populations, including youths of color and economically marginalized youths. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review study sought to evaluate the following research questions: (1) What is the extent of the current literature on mHealth apps that provide intervention for mental health problems in children and adolescents? (2) What is known from the existing literature about the effectiveness or efficacy of delivering mental health services via mHealth apps? (3) What are the gaps in the knowledge base in the fields of technology and mental health? (4) Do the reviewed mHealth apps address issues of cultural sensitivity or have they been tested with underrepresented groups (ie, youths of color or economically marginalized groups)? METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted using relevant search terms. Seven independent reviewers screened identified studies, including title and abstract review to determine if studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) targeted samples with mental health symptomology or disorders, (2) studied youth participants aged 6-17 years, and (3) examined the use of a mobile app-based platform for intervention. Relevant studies were subjected to full-text review to extract and chart relevant data based on a priori research questions. RESULTS: The initial database search yielded 304 papers published from 2010 to 2021. After screening and selection, the final review included 10 papers on the effectiveness and efficacy of mental health intervention apps for youths aged 8 to 17 years. Identified apps targeted a broad range of mental health challenges in youths (ie, depression, self-harm, autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder). Results identified only a small number of studies suggesting that current effectiveness and efficacy research in this area are limited. While some studies provided general support for the effectiveness of mHealth apps in improving mental health outcomes in youths, several notable limitations were present across the literature, reducing the generalizability of findings. Additionally, considerations around racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity were scarce across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although some studies cited in this scoping review provide support for the effectiveness and efficacy of mHealth apps targeting mental health concerns in youths, the overall body of literature remains quite limited. Moreover, mHealth apps expressly developed to be culturally responsive are almost nonexistent. Further efforts are needed to recruit youths who are typically underrepresented in research and invite stakeholder participation and collaborative input in the early stages of the mHealth app development process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.424 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207