Translating Suicide Safety Planning Components Into the Design of mHealth App Features: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide safety planning is an evidence-based approach used to help individuals identify strategies to keep themselves safe during a mental health crisis. This study systematically reviewed the literature focused on mobile health (mHealth) suicide safety planning apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the extent to which apps integrated components of the safety planning intervention (SPI), and if so, how these safety planning components were integrated into the design-based features of the apps. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we systematically analyzed 14 peer-reviewed studies specific to mHealth apps for suicide safety planning. We conducted an analysis of the literature to evaluate how the apps incorporated SPI components and examined similarities and differences among the apps by conducting a comparative analysis of app features. An independent review of SPI components and app features was conducted by downloading the available apps. RESULTS: Most of the mHealth apps (5/7, 71%) integrated SPI components and provided customizable features that expanded upon traditional paper-based safety planning processes. App design features were categorized into 5 themes, including interactive features, individualized user experiences, interface design, guidance and training, and privacy and sharing. All apps included access to community supports and revisable safety plans. Fewer mHealth apps (3/7, 43%) included interactive features, such as associating coping strategies with specific stressors. Most studies (10/14, 71%) examined the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the safety planning mHealth apps. Usability findings were generally positive, as users often found these apps easy to use and visually appealing. In terms of feasibility, users preferred using mHealth apps during times of crisis, but the continuous use of the apps outside of crisis situations received less support. Few studies (4/14, 29%) examined the effectiveness of mHealth apps for suicide-related outcomes. Positive shifts in attitudes and desire to live, improved coping strategies, enhanced emotional stability, and a decrease in suicidal thoughts or self-harm behaviors were examined in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the need for researchers, clinicians, and app designers to continue to work together to align evidence-based research on mHealth suicide safety planning apps with lessons learned for how to best deliver these technologies to end users. Our review brings to light mHealth suicide safety planning strategies needing further development and testing, such as lethal means guidance, collaborative safety planning, and the opportunity to embed more interactive features that leverage the advanced capabilities of technology to improve client outcomes as well as foster sustained user engagement beyond a crisis. Although preliminary evidence shows that these apps may help to mitigate suicide risk, clinical trials with larger sample sizes and more robust research designs are needed to validate their efficacy before the widespread adoption and use.
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 | 0.034 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".