Visit our free App Evaluation Database, where you can filter and find apps that meet your needs.
PurposeChoosing the right mental health app is challenging with over 10,000 available for download, and there is a significant lack of concordance in the results generated from different rating frameworks, making it difficult for clinicians and users to decide upon an app. |
MethodWe regularly review the app store marketplaces and study ongoing efforts to regulate, evaluate, and rate mental health apps. Our team has collaborated with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to build an App Evaluation Model and a database to help users choose |
Collection Supplemented by our own research, our team is aware that a thorough review often needs to take into account terms of services and privacy policies, which are sometimes hard to locate, outdated, and intentionally vague.
|
InterpretationThe APA App Evaluation Model is designed to equip individuals with the information they need to assess digital health tools on their own and in the context of a therapeutic relationship.
|
ImplementationOur goal is to enhance and share education around the efficacy and safety of mobile health applications. In an effort to enhance the rating system and make it actionable for users, we have created a database of apps.
|
Relevant Reading
- Henson, P., David, G., Albright, K., & Torous, J. (2019). Deriving a practical framework for the evaluation of health apps. The Lancet Digital Health, 1(2), e52–e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30013-5
- Mental Health Apps. American Psychiatric Association. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/mental-health-apps
- Wisniewski, H., Liu, G., Henson, P., Vaidyam, A., Hajratalli, N. K., Onnela, J.-P., & Torous, J. (2019). Understanding the quality, effectiveness and attributes of top-rated smartphone health apps. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 22(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300069
- Rodriguez-Villa, E., Torous, J. (2019). Regulating digital health technologies with transparency: the case for dynamic and multi-stakeholder evaluation. BMC Medicine, 17. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-019-1447-x
