Mobile Apps to Support Mental Health Response in Natural Disasters: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disasters are becoming more frequent due to the impact of extreme weather events attributed to climate change, causing loss of lives, property, and psychological trauma. Mental health response to disasters emphasizes prevention and mitigation, and mobile health (mHealth) apps have been used for mental health promotion and treatment. However, little is known about their use in the mental health components of disaster management. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review was conducted to explore the use of mobile phone apps for mental health responses to natural disasters and to identify gaps in the literature. METHODS: We identified relevant keywords and subject headings and conducted comprehensive searches in 6 electronic databases. Studies in which participants were exposed to a man-made disaster were included if the sample also included some participants exposed to a natural hazard. Only full-text studies published in English were included. The initial titles and abstracts of the unique papers were screened by 2 independent review authors. Full texts of the selected papers that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed by the 2 independent reviewers. Data were extracted from each selected full-text paper and synthesized using a narrative approach based on the outcome measures, duration, frequency of use of the mobile phone apps, and the outcomes. This scoping review was reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: Of the 1398 papers retrieved, 5 were included in this review. A total of 3 studies were conducted on participants exposed to psychological stress following a disaster while 2 were for disaster relief workers. The mobile phone apps for the interventions included Training for Life Skills, Sonoma Rises, Headspace, Psychological First Aid, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Behavioural Health Disaster Response Apps. The different studies assessed the effectiveness or efficacy of the mobile app, feasibility, acceptability, and characteristics of app use or predictors of use. Different measures were used to assess the effectiveness of the apps' use as either the primary or secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of studies are exploring the use of mobile phone apps for mental health responses to disasters. The 5 studies included in this review showed promising results. Mobile apps have the potential to provide effective mental health support before, during, and after disasters. However, further research is needed to explore the potential of mobile phone apps in mental health responses to all hazards.
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 | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".