Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Functionality, Evidence, and Privacy Issues Around Smartphone Apps for the Top Neuropsychiatric Conditions
Mia T Minen, Ariana Gopal, Gabriella Sahyoun, Eric Stieglitz, John Torous. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2020-07-16
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21). Sixty-nine percent of apps had an intervention component, 18% were deemed evidence based, 77% had a privacy policy, 70% required payment for access to all features, and 19% rewarded user behavior changes. Most apps on the market targeted migraine, depression, and anxiety and contained interventions, although most of the interventions did not appear to be evidence based. Additionally, although most apps had privacy policies, lay people may have difficulty understanding these policies due to their complexities.
Key findings
- Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21).
- Sixty-nine percent of apps had an intervention component, 18% were deemed evidence based, 77% had a privacy policy, 70% required payment for access to all features, and 19% rewarded user behavior changes.
- Most apps on the market targeted migraine, depression, and anxiety and contained interventions, although most of the interventions did not appear to be evidence based.
- Additionally, although most apps had privacy policies, lay people may have difficulty understanding these policies due to their complexities.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32669020) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Minen, M. T., Gopal, A., Sahyoun, G., Stieglitz, E., & Torous, J. (2021). The Functionality, Evidence, and Privacy Issues Around Smartphone Apps for the Top Neuropsychiatric Conditions. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19120353
Vancouver
Minen MT, Gopal A, Sahyoun G, Stieglitz E, Torous J. The Functionality, Evidence, and Privacy Issues Around Smartphone Apps for the Top Neuropsychiatric Conditions. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2021. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19120353. PMID: 32669020.
BibTeX
@article{minen2021-32669020,
author = {Minen, Mia T and Gopal, Ariana and Sahyoun, Gabriella and Stieglitz, Eric and Torous, John},
title = {{The Functionality, Evidence, and Privacy Issues Around Smartphone Apps for the Top Neuropsychiatric Conditions}},
journal = {The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19120353},
pmid = {32669020},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19120353}
}