MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399908404 · doi:10.2196/57401

Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Technologies in the United States: Systematic Literature Review and Framework Synthesis

2024· review· en· W4399908404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julianna Catania, Steph Beaver, Rakshitha S Kamath, Emma Worthington, Minyi Lu, Hema Gandhi, Heidi C. Waters, Daniel C. Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMental healthSystematic reviewDigital healthMedicinePsychologyMEDLINEEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringHealth carePsychiatryWorld Wide WebLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital mental health technologies (DMHTs) have the potential to enhance mental health care delivery. However, there is little information on how DMHTs are evaluated and what factors influence their use. OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review was conducted to understand how DMHTs are valued in the United States from user, payer, and employer perspectives. METHODS: Articles published after 2017 were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, the Health Technology Assessment Database, and digital and mental health congresses. Each article was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers to identify US studies reporting on factors considered in the evaluation of DMHTs targeting mental health, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative and Cohort Studies Checklists. Studies were coded and indexed using the American Psychiatric Association's Mental Health App Evaluation Framework to extract and synthesize relevant information, and novel themes were added iteratively as identified. RESULTS: Of the 4353 articles screened, data from 26 unique studies from patient, caregiver, and health care provider perspectives were included. Engagement style was the most reported theme (23/26, 88%), with users valuing DMHT usability, particularly alignment with therapeutic goals through features including anxiety management tools. Key barriers to DMHT use included limited internet access, poor technical literacy, and privacy concerns. Novel findings included the discreetness of DMHTs to avoid stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Usability, cost, accessibility, technical considerations, and alignment with therapeutic goals are important to users, although DMHT valuation varies across individuals. DMHT apps should be developed and selected with specific user needs in mind.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.160
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.160
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0330.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.404 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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