Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Front Public Health. 2024 May 7;12:1196491. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1196491. eCollection 2024.
Mental health Applications (MH Apps) can potentially improve access to high-quality mental health care. However, the recent rapid expansion of MH Apps has created growing concern regarding their safety and effectiveness, leading to the development of AETs (Assessment and Evaluation Tools) to help guide users. This article provides a critical, mixed methods analysis of existing AETs for MH Apps by reviewing the criteria used to evaluate MH Apps and assessing their effectiveness as evaluation tools.
To identify relevant AETs, gray and scholarly literature were located through stakeholder consultation, Internet searching via Google and a literature search of bibliographic databases Medline, APA PsycInfo, and LISTA. Materials in English that provided a tool or method to evaluate MH Apps and were published from January 1, 2000, to January 26, 2021 were considered for inclusion.
Thirteen relevant AETs targeted for MH Apps met the inclusion criteria. The qualitative analysis of AETs and their evaluation criteria revealed that despite purporting to focus on MH Apps, the included AETs did not contain criteria that made them more specific to MH Apps than general health applications. There appeared to be very little agreed-upon terminology in this field, and the focus of selection criteria in AETs is often IT-related, with a lesser focus on clinical issues, equity, and scientific evidence. The quality of AETs was quantitatively assessed using the AGREE II, a standardized tool for evaluating assessment guidelines. Three out of 13 AETs were deemed 'recommended' using the AGREE II.
There is a need for further improvements to existing AETs. To realize the full potential of MH Apps and reduce stakeholders' concerns, AETs must be developed within the current laws and governmental health policies, be specific to mental health, be feasible to implement and be supported by rigorous research methodology, medical education, and public awareness.
心理健康应用程序（MH Apps）有可能改善高质量心理健康护理的可及性。然而，MH Apps 的最近快速扩张引起了对其安全性和有效性的越来越多的关注，导致开发了 AETs（评估和评估工具）来帮助指导用户。本文通过审查用于评估 MH Apps 的标准并评估它们作为评估工具的有效性，对现有的 MH Apps AETs 进行了批判性的混合方法分析。
为了确定相关的 AETs，通过利益相关者咨询、通过 Google 进行互联网搜索以及对 Medline、APA PsycInfo 和 LISTA 书目数据库的文献搜索，找到了灰色和学术文献。考虑纳入的材料为英文，提供了评估 MH Apps 的工具或方法，并且是在 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 1 月 26 日期间出版的。
有 13 项针对 MH Apps 的相关 AETs 符合纳入标准。对 AETs 及其评估标准的定性分析表明，尽管这些 AETs 声称专注于 MH Apps，但它们并未包含使其比一般健康应用程序更具体地针对 MH Apps 的标准。在这个领域似乎几乎没有达成一致的术语，并且 AETs 中选择标准的重点通常是与 IT 相关的，而对临床问题、公平性和科学证据的关注较少。使用 AGREE II 对 AETs 的质量进行了定量评估，AGREE II 是评估评估指南的标准化工具。使用 AGREE II，有 3 项 AETs 被认为是“推荐”的。
需要进一步改进现有的 AETs。为了充分发挥 MH Apps 的潜力并减少利益相关者的担忧，AETs 必须在当前法律和政府卫生政策范围内制定，具体针对心理健康，实施可行，并得到严格的研究方法、医学教育和公众意识的支持。
