Using science to sell apps: Evaluation of mental health app store quality claims
Using science to sell apps: Evaluation of mental health app store quality claims
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41746-019-0093-1
复制
发表时间：
2019-03-22
影响因子：
15.2
通讯作者：
Reda, Bill
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Larsen, Mark Erik;Huckvale, Kit;Reda, Bill
尽管出现了精选的心理健康应用程序库，但消费者的个人搜索仍然是发现应用程序的常见方法。因此，应用商店的描述是告知消费者选择的关键渠道。这项研究检查了通过这些应用商店描述引用的声明，科学语言被用于支持此类声明的程度，以及文献中的相应证据。在Google Play和iTunes上搜索与抑郁、自我伤害、药物使用、焦虑和精神分裂症有关的应用程序。排名靠前的、以消费者为重点的应用程序的描述被编码，以确定可接受性和有效性的声明，以及支持声明的形式。对于那些表面上援引科学原理的应用程序，他们进行了文献搜索，以评估其可信度。编写了73个应用程序，大多数(%)声称在诊断心理健康状况、改善症状、情绪或自我管理方面有效。科学语言最常用于支持这些有效性声明(44%)，尽管这包括未经文献搜索证实的技术(8/24=33%)。两款应用程序描述了支持该应用程序使用的低质量主要证据。只有一款应用包含对已发表文献的引用。少数应用程序(14%)描述了涉及生活体验的设计或开发，没有一个应用程序涉及应用程序库等认证或认可过程。科学语言是使用精神健康应用程序最常被引用的支持形式；然而，高质量的证据并不常见。改进的知识翻译策略可能会改进其他策略的采用，例如认证或生活体验联合设计。
Despite the emergence of curated app libraries for mental health apps, personal searches by consumers remain a common method for discovering apps. App store descriptions therefore represent a key channel to inform consumer choice. This study examined the claims invoked through these app store descriptions, the extent to which scientific language is used to support such claims, and the corresponding evidence in the literature. Google Play and iTunes were searched for apps related to depression, self-harm, substance use, anxiety, and schizophrenia. The descriptions of the top-ranking, consumer-focused apps were coded to identify claims of acceptability and effectiveness, and forms of supporting statement. For apps which invoked ostensibly scientific principles, a literature search was conducted to assess their credibility. Seventy-three apps were coded, and the majority (64%) claimed effectiveness at diagnosing a mental health condition, or improving symptoms, mood or self-management. Scientific language was most frequently used to support these effectiveness claims (44%), although this included techniques not validated by literature searches (8/24 = 33%). Two apps described low-quality, primary evidence to support the use of the app. Only one app included a citation to published literature. A minority of apps (14%) described design or development involving lived experience, and none referenced certification or accreditation processes such as app libraries. Scientific language was the most frequently invoked form of support for use of mental health apps; however, high-quality evidence is not commonly described. Improved knowledge translation strategies may improve the adoption of other strategies, such as certification or lived experience co-design.