Abstract
Smartphone applications (“apps”) may contribute to closing the treatment gap for depression by reaching large populations at relatively low costs. The general public seems open towards the use of apps for mental disorders but less is known about the attitudes of health care professionals. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the available evidence on the effectiveness of apps for depression and to explore the attitudes of health care professionals towards their use in practice. A systematic literature search was performed aimed at studies utilizing smartphone applications for depression. In addition, a survey was conducted to explore health care professionals’ attitudes towards using these treatment apps in clinical practice. Twelve articles were identified in the systematic literature review. All included trials reported a decline in depressive symptoms after the intervention periods. In the survey, 72 health care professionals participated. Significant differences were found between the level of technology experience and how much the health care professional would consider the use of mobile applications in clinical practice. Survey participants reported openness towards therapeutic app use but very little knowledge and experience in the field. Apps appear to be a promising self-management tool for reducing depressive symptoms. Despite some concerns, health care professionals’ attitudes towards the use of smartphone applications in clinical practice are quite positive. The provision of information on the potential benefits of e-health interventions as well as the training of professionals in the application of new technologies may increase health care professionals’ awareness and knowledge about mobile apps for the treatment of mental disorders.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Depression is one of the most common mental disorders with more than 300 million people affected worldwide. It is a major contributor to the overall global burden of disease and the leading cause of disability [1]. Although depression is a highly prevalent and disabling disease, only a part of affected individuals receives adequate treatment [2]. The median untreated rate for depression is estimated to be more than 50%, even though these rates vary per region in the world [3]. This treatment gap is a growing public health concern and the improvement of access to mental healthcare is one of the major issues in this field [4]. Numerous barriers to treatment have been identified to explain this shortcoming in mental health care provision. These include the lack of available facilities and trained professionals, the cost of treatment, stigma, structural barriers and lack of perceived need for treatment [3, 5]. Because the prevalence of depression is so high and not likely to decrease in the near future, it appears doubtful that the traditional ways of providing mental healthcare alone will be able to meet the demands [6]. Scaling up mental health care may need to make use of innovative treatment approaches. In this context, the interest in e-mental health interventions has grown substantially in recent years. Digital technologies have strongly advanced during the last decades and the current developments in this field are very promising [7]. The new technologies may enhance the provision of mental healthcare, contribute to closing the treatment gap and may lead to improved cost-effectiveness because large populations may be reached at relatively low cost [8]. Especially smartphone-based approaches and the use of mobile applications (apps) gain increasing attention due to the immense and expanding number of smartphone-users worldwide. It is estimated that in 2020 there will be more than 6 billion individuals worldwide using smartphones, representing 70% of the global population [9]. Thus, mobile interventions are considered to play a major role in future healthcare provision [8]. They can be incorporated in all stages of disease management (prevention, treatment, aftercare) and target different functions, for example symptom assessment, patient education, communication or treatment adherence [7]. Furthermore, there are treatment apps which are based on already established treatment methods, for example, cognitive behavioral therapy or behavioral activation [5].
Among the disease-specific apps, mental health applications play a considerable role and depression is one of the most commonly addressed mental health conditions [10]. Studies suggest that the general public is open towards these interventions for the treatment of mental disorders [11]. Health care professionals’ attitudes towards app use in clinical practice are examined to a much lesser extent. However, there are studies that investigated health care professionals’ acceptance towards general e-mental health interventions and these studies report varying degrees of openness [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Despite the fast pace of technological advances and the large number of health related apps on the market, research in this field is still in its infancy. Existing reviews on mobile interventions include groups of mental disorders or do not focus solely on treatment apps. Our aim was to examine the available evidence on the effectiveness of treatment apps for depression. In addition, we sought to explore the attitudes of health care professionals towards the use of these apps because they play a key role in the implementation of new technologies and represent the link between research and practice [15].
Methods
Systematic literature search
A systematic literature search was conducted in three databases: Medline (Pubmed), the Cochrane Library and Scopus (Elsevier). Studies were selected according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria:
-
The study assesses treatment apps, defined as smartphone applications that contain active treatment components (e.g., based on cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral activation).
-
The smartphone application targets depression in a clinical or subclinical population.
-
One main outcome measure is symptoms of depression.
-
The study is written in English or German language.
Exclusion criteria:
-
The app is solely used for symptom monitoring, assessment, data collection, medication/therapy adherence or prevention.
-
The app is solely used for lifestyle change (e.g., diet, exercise).
-
The app is a pure text-messaging or videoconferencing app.
-
The app is a virtual reality or gaming app.
-
The app is designed only for health care professionals.
-
The study is a protocol, manual, conference abstract or opinion paper.
The search algorithm included a combination of the following terms with the asterisk indicating a truncation: intervention*, app*, blended, mhealth, e-health, e-mental health, mobil*, depression, major depressive disorder, mood disorder.
No further limits were set to the databases. The selection process followed the inclusion and exclusion criteria above as well as a quality assessment using quality checklists. These checklists contained information on study quality, study characteristics and an overall assessment.
Survey design and development
A questionnaire was developed with the aim to explore health care professionals’ attitudes toward using treatment apps in clinical practice. As operationalized in the systematic literature search, apps were defined as smartphone applications that contain active treatment components and target depression. The target group of the survey was mental health care professionals. This group was defined as professionals who are actively involved in mental health care, like psychiatrists, psychologists, (psychiatric) nurses, social workers, occupational therapists or others.
The content of the questionnaire was built based on the results of the literature search described above as well as additional searches related to acceptance of mobile technologies in mental health care. The survey contained 25 questions covering different thematic components: demographic information about the respondent (gender, age, country of residence, profession and professional experience), general technology use (experience with technologies in general, smartphone ownership and app use) and experience and attitudes related to app use in clinical practice (awareness related to apps, expectations of treatment outcomes with apps alone and their use in a combined treatment approach, professional support and the availability of apps). Finally, a number of facilitators and barriers for the use of treatment apps were included to be rated for their relevance. All ratings were performed on five-point or four-point Likert scales. The questionnaire has been validated by a number of test-runs with mental health care professionals. They checked the questionnaire for comprehensibility (in form and content), completeness and technical functionality before the data collection started. Feedback was used to adapt the questionnaire accordingly.
Data collection and analysis
The survey was administered with the scientific online survey platform SurveyMonkey. Data collection was initiated via email lists and online-platforms of these supporting organizations: Arq Foundation (Diemen, The Netherlands), Mental Health Reform (Dublin, Ireland), Etablissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille-Métropole (Lille, France) and Aktionsbündnis Psychische Gesundheit (Berlin, Germany). The organizations are active in mental health and represent a variety of professional groups in this field. They are all interested in e-mental health and were selected from existing contacts. The mentioned organizations were the ones that agreed to support the distribution of the survey. The link to the survey was sent via email (e.g., in newsletters) and put online on associated webpages. Due to the anonymous and open access character of the survey as well as the unknown number of web page visitors, it was not possible to estimate a response rate for the survey.
Data analyses were performed in IBM SPSS version 22. Descriptive and explorative analyses were conducted. A Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was performed to identify gender differences in the scoring for consideration of app use as well as the scoring for concern about app use. Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted to identify differences in age, country of residence or the amount computer experience and how much one would consider the use of apps or how much concern one has about the use of apps in clinical practice.
Results
Literature search
The search yielded 141 documents including ten duplicates, which were removed. After screening titles and abstracts of these 131 studies, 25 full texts were acquired. Eight additional full texts were included from cross-references of the obtained studies or from hand searches. Thirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria and were selected for full text review and quality assessment. Twenty-one studies were then excluded due to low quality or irrelevant content. Finally, twelve studies were selected for the review. The article selection process is shown in Fig. 1.
Characteristics of included studies
All reviewed studies are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Eligible studies included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two pilot-RCTs, two single arm pilot trials, one prospective cohort study, three review articles and one meta-analysis. Sample sizes of the included trials varied from 24 to 626 participants. Most trials included samples with clinical levels of depression as determined by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) or the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) [20,21,22,23]. The remaining trials focused on sub-clinical levels of depression [6, 24, 25]. The symptom assessment was done online [21, 24] or by a (phone-) interview [6, 20, 23]. One study did not report the method of initial assessment [25]. In two studies, the diagnosis was administered by a clinician and the sample was drawn from a clinical setting [22, 26]. The remaining studies recruited their participants from the general population. From the studies that used a control condition, most of these were active control conditions providing another intervention. Two of the included RCTs used a waitlist–control condition [23, 24]. Some trials were underpowered or did not give information on the statistical power. Overall, the level of evidence of the included studies was very heterogeneous.
Therapeutic approaches of apps used in the trials included cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy, behavioral activation (BA), mindfulness-based treatment and behavioral strategies like targeting emotional regulation or cognitive reframing. Interventions were supported by clinicians in most trials. Two trials had only minimal clinician support and one intervention was conducted without any support by a clinician. Details are given in Table 1.
Eligible studies also included three review articles and one meta-analysis. The meta-analysis focused on smartphone-apps for depressive symptoms [27]. The other review articles focused on a broader scope of mobile interventions and mental disorders but they included relevant evidence on depression [5, 11, 28]. For the purpose of completeness these studies are included and presented separately (Table 2).
Intervention effects, adherence and user satisfaction
The maximum length of an intervention in the included trials was 12 weeks [22, 25]. Other trials conducted interventions of 8 weeks [6, 20, 23, 26] and 4 weeks [21]. Adherence rates to the respective interventions as conducted in each study varied between 70% up to 94% [20, 22, 23, 25, 26]. Two studies had lower rates between 22% and 35% of participants adhering during the intervention period [21, 24]. Furthermore, high participant satisfaction as well as acceptability of the mobile interventions was reported [22, 23, 25]. In the study by Watts et al. [23], all participants were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the intervention. In another study by Schmädeke and Bischoff [22], one-third of an eligible participant group declined to engage in the intervention which the authors evaluated as an acceptance problem. However, participants who engaged in the study reported high satisfaction with the intervention [22]. All included trials reported a decline in the PHQ-9 or BDI-scores after the intervention periods. Effect sizes were not reported in all trials but when reported they ranged from medium to large effects, depending on the comparison. Details on the main outcomes of the interventions are outlined in Table 1.
Survey
Participants
Out of 72 individuals who filled out the survey questionnaire, 15 had to be excluded from the analyses because they did not belong to the target group of health care professionals. Included professionals were medical practitioner/psychologists/psychotherapists (n = 33), other therapeutic professions like, e.g., occupational therapists (n = 13), nurses (n = 7) and social workers (n = 5). From the included individuals, 31.6% (n = 18) were male and 64.9% (n = 37) were female. Two participants did not report their gender. The mean age was 43 years (SD = 12.3) with an age range of 21–74 years. Participants came from France (n = 2), the Netherlands (n = 4), Ireland (n = 14) and Germany (n = 37). Participants had a mean professional experience of 14.8 years (SD = 12.2, range 1–42 years).
App use and technology experience
The vast majority of participants (93%, n = 51) owned a smartphone and stated to have “a lot” (29.8%, n = 17) or “quite a lot” (52.6%, n = 30) experience with computer technologies. The remaining 17.5% (n = 10) of the participants described to have “a little” experience with computer technologies. Daily use of their smartphone apps was reported by 75.4% (n = 43) of the respondents. On average, the participants used seven apps on their smartphone on a regular basis (SD = 7.5). Less than half of the respondents (45.6%, n = 26) stated that they did not know apps for mental disorders. Knowledge of apps for mental disorders was reported by 42.1%;(n = 24) of the participants. For applications that are specifically used for depression, 59.6% (n = 34) of the respondents stated that they did not know any of these apps and 31.6% (n = 18) stated that they knew apps for depression. With regard to their own use of apps in clinical practice, 70.2% (n = 40) of the participants replied that they had never used apps in clinical practice before. Only 21.1% (n = 12) stated that they had used treatment apps before.
Attitudes
Of those, who had never used treatment apps before, 40.3% (n = 23) would consider their use “a lot” or “quite a lot”. Another 33.3% (n = 19) of the respondents would use treatment apps “a little” or “very little”. Only 3.5% (n = 2) stated that they would not use apps at all in their practice. Regarding the helpfulness for different levels of depression, the respondents were asked to rate each level according to their opinion. Most participants considered apps most helpful for individuals with sub-clinical levels of depression (68%, n = 34) followed by mild-to-moderate depression (52%, n = 26) and finally for severe depression (10%, n = 5). The majority of the respondents (64.9%, n = 37) found that apps should be freely available to anyone. Concerning the use of treatment apps with the support of a health care professional, 45.6% (n = 26) of the respondents voted against and 42.1% (n = 24) voted in favor of app use only with support of a health care professional. Apps were rated more helpful in a combined treatment approach than as a stand-alone intervention. The majority of the respondents (66.0%, n = 33) expected treatment outcomes to be “better” or “much better” when apps are added to the treatment of depression. Negative attitudes of therapists towards digital treatment, lack of therapist contact, limited security of personal data and privacy protection and limited suitability for certain patient groups were the most named barriers for therapeutic app use. Easy access to treatment, increased availability of therapy anytime and anywhere, and the reach of certain patient groups received strongest agreement as facilitators of therapeutic app use (Table 3).
Kruskal–Wallis tests showed no significant differences between age groups or the country of residence and the scoring for consideration of app use as well as the concern about app use. Significant differences were found in the levels of computer experience and how much one would consider using apps in clinical practice (Table 4). The Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test did not show gender differences in how much one would consider the use of apps in clinical practice or how much concern one had about the use of apps in clinical practice. Mean values and standard deviations for age, country of residence, gender, the amount of computer experience and the consideration of app use as well as concern about app use are shown in Table 4.
Discussion
App-based interventions lead to a reduction of symptoms of depression in all reviewed studies. These results appear promising and are in line with previous reviews on other e-mental health interventions [4, 5, 11, 27,28,29,30,31]. The adherence and user satisfaction were good in more than half of the included trials which may provide a link to their acceptability, indicated by these two factors [29]. Acceptability of an intervention among patients is an important factor for sustainability and successful implementation in practice [32]. The vast majority of the studies included some sort of clinician support during the intervention periods, which makes it difficult to completely isolate the intervention effects due to the new technologies [5]. Using apps in a combined treatment approach might be the preferred method of their application. Previous research has also shown that clinician support improves adherence and outcomes [6, 33]. Health care professionals play a vital role when it comes to the application of new and effective therapeutic approaches [32]. They are the primary advisors to patients and directly influence their attitude formation towards a treatment method [34]. When acceptability is low, the overall effectiveness of an intervention may be hampered [32].
Despite the promising findings of the reviewed studies, it needs to be pointed out that the evidence base is still limited. In addition, the quality of the evidence in the selected studies differed widely and included a number of small-scale pilot trials and single arm trials with no comparator. Some of the studies that used a control group, compared to an active control condition which was not an established treatment approach in all cases. The effects of the interventions may be smaller compared to active controls than to inactive control groups which has also been shown previously [27]. The interpretation of the results should thus be made carefully.
Overall, survey respondents’ attitudes towards app use in the treatment of depression were quite positive. Similar positive attitudes of health care professionals towards technology use have also been reported in other studies [15,16,17,18,19]. The health care professionals in the survey reported a good understanding of technology and regular use of smartphones. But only a few participants had knowledge about app-based interventions or actual experience with them in the treatment of depression or other mental disorders. Awareness of existing therapeutic technologies seems to be quite low. One of many reasons for this might be the fact that validated and reliable apps are often not freely available because they were designed for study purposes [35]. In most countries, apps or other e-health technologies are not yet integrated into standard health care provision.
A considerable number of respondents were open towards app use and would consider using them a lot in clinical practice. Participants regarded apps as most suitable for sub-clinical levels of depression followed by mild levels of depression. That apps were considered to be more suitable for mild-to-moderate symptoms than for severe symptoms was also found in previous studies [5, 13, 27]. Our survey participants expected app use in combination with face-to-face treatment to be more effective than the stand-alone app treatment. A combined treatment approach thus appears to be the preferred treatment option by health care professionals. Guidance and professional support are supposedly key factors in the use of e-health interventions [33, 36]. As indicated above, a combined treatment approach might not only be more effective for patients but also more acceptable for professionals and by this easier to implement in practice.
We found significant differences between the levels of computer experience and how much one would consider app use in clinical practice. Thus, more familiarity with technology positively influences the attitude towards apps and the expectation of their therapeutic benefits. Accordingly, prior experience with (health-) technologies is an important facilitator for acceptance of e-health interventions which has also been reported in other studies [15, 34, 37]. The acceptance and willingness to use these interventions could be improved by education and training in the field. In a study by Perle et al. (2013), the majority of included psychologists stated that they were more willing to use e-health interventions with additional training and education [38]. In another study by Titzler et al. (2018), the necessity of providing educational and training sessions to become familiar with new technologies was pointed out by participating psychotherapists who were asked about their perspectives on blended therapies including internet- and mobile-based interventions [39]. Exposure through demonstration of an intervention and the provision of information material may also positively influence attitudes as has been shown in studies on computerised cognitive behavioral treatment [40]. The distribution of evidence-based information as well as the provision of training sessions, seminars and workshops for e-health could be used to positively influence attitudes and uptake of web- and mobile-based interventions.
Studies have found that male health care professionals show higher acceptance of e-health interventions than female health care professionals [15, 34, 41]. Younger age may also positively influence acceptance of e-health interventions [15, 34, 38, 40]. Our analyses could not confirm these previously reported gender or age differences. Effects in our analyses were small-to-moderate without reaching significance level. However, a post hoc power calculation revealed that age and gender would have reached significance level in a sample of 150–200 participants, whereas the obtained sample size was sufficient to ensure the large effect for “computer experience” and “consideration of app use” as reported.
The participants in our survey considered the lack of therapist contact, negative attitudes of therapists towards digital treatment and limited data and privacy protection as the biggest drawbacks in app use. Especially the concerns about data protection are a frequently cited problem [10, 13, 39, 42, 43]. Given the enormously growing app market, it is difficult to select those apps that are reliable and effective [43]. In fact, there are no regulations or mandatory guidelines for quality or data protection to date. Many apps fail to provide accurate privacy policies [10]. This barrier is increasingly recognized by stakeholders and there are now attempts to develop guidelines and quality criteria including data protection for internet interventions [7, 10, 44].
Limitations
This study has several limitations. The number of included studies in the review was small and the quality varied widely. The limited amount of available research may lower the generalizability of the presented results. In addition, the intervention periods were relatively short with a maximum of 3 months. The sustainability of effects and long-term adherence needs to be confirmed in studies over a longer period of time. Furthermore, only two studies recruited the sample from a clinical setting with an actual clinician-administered diagnosis. The remaining studies recruited from the general population and partly used self-assessment tools for inclusion. This may limit the meaning of the results in relation to real disease. The apps that were used in the included trials varied and it is not yet clear which components of the interventions are effective and which mode or frequency of use is most beneficial for adherence and outcomes. As the field of research on mobile interventions is relatively new, these aspects need to be addressed in future research. The review focused especially on treatment apps for depression which might have excluded other good internet interventions that have been studied. In addition, the outcomes of our study may not be applicable to other types of mobile interventions or other mental disorders.
Our survey results should be interpreted with caution. Despite all recruitment efforts, the number of responding health care professionals was small. Furthermore, the majority of our respondents were female and German, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Finally, most of the respondents did not have any experience with smartphone applications in clinical practice. Thus, participants replied from a more theoretical point of view, which needs to be taken into account in the interpretation of the results.
Conclusion
Apps appear to be a promising self-management tool for reducing depressive symptoms and seem to be acceptable for both app users and professionals. Despite some concerns, health care professionals’ attitudes towards the use of mobile interventions in clinical practice are rather positive. Therapeutic benefits of apps are seen especially in their application in combination with other treatment methods and for mild-to-moderate levels of depression. Positive attitudes are necessary for future implementation. However, health professionals lack knowledge and experience related to app use in the treatment of mental disorders. The provision of information on the potential benefits of e-health interventions as well as the training of professionals in the application of new technologies may increase health care professionals’ awareness and knowledge about mobile apps for the treatment of mental disorders.
References
World Health Organization (2017) Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders. Global Health Estimates. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/254610/WHO-MSD-MER-2017.2-eng.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2017
Proudfoot J, Clarke J, Birch M-R, Whitton AE, Parker G, Manicavasagar V, Harrison V, Christensen H, Hadzi-Pavlovic D (2013) Impact of a mobile phone and web program on symptom and functional outcomes for people with mild-to-moderate depression, anxiety and stress: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 13:312. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-312
Kohn R, Saxena S, Levav I, Saraceno B (2004) The treatment gap in mental healthcare. Bull World Health Organ 82(11):858–866
Gaebel W, Großimlinghaus I, Kerst A, Cohen Y, Hinsche-Böckenholt A, Johnson B, Mucic D, Petrea I, Rössler W, Thornicroft G, Zielasek J (2016) European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on the quality of eMental health interventions in the treatment of psychotic disorders. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 266(2):125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-016-0677-6
van Ameringen M, Turna J, Khalesi Z, Pullia K, Patterson B (2017) There is an app for that! The current state of mobile applications (apps) for DSM-5 obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and mood disorders. Depress Anxiety 34:526–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22657
Mohr DC, Tomasino KN, Lattie EG, Palac HL, Kwasny MJ, Weingardt K, Karr CJ, Kaiser SM, Rossom RC, Bardsley LR, Caccamo L, Stiles-Shields C, Schueller SM (2017) IntelliCare: an eclectic, skills-based app suite for the treatment of depression and anxiety. J Med Internet Res 19(1):e10. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6645
Klein JP, Gerlinger G, Knaevelsrud C, Bohus M, Meisenzahl E, Kersting A, Röhr S, Riedel-Heller SG, Sprick U, Dirmaier J, Härter M, Hegerl U, Hohagen F, Hauth I (2016) Internetbasierte Interventionen in der Behandlung psychischer Störungen. Überblick. Qualitätskriterien Perspektiven Nervenarzt 87(11):1185–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-016-0217-7
Versluis A, Verkuil B, Spinhoven P, Van Der Ploeg MM, Brosschot JF (2016) Changing mental health and positive psychological well-being using ecological momentary interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 18(6):e152. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5642
Ericsson (2016) Ericsson Mobility Report. On the pulse of the networked society. https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2016/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2016.pdf. Accessed 04 Apr 2018
IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science (2017) The Growing Value of Digital Health. Evidence and Impact on Human Health and the Healthcare System. https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/the-growing-value-of-digital-health. Accessed 11 Jul 2018
Donker T, Petrie K, Proudfoot J, Clarke J, Birch M-R, Christensen H (2013) Smartphones for smarter delivery of mental health programs: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 15(11):e247. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2791
Sinclair C, Holloway K, Riley G, Auret K (2013) Online mental health resources in rural Australia: clinician perceptions of acceptability. J Med Internet Res 15(9):e193. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2772
Topooco N, Riper H, Araya R, Berking M, Brunn M, Chevreul K, Cieslak R, Ebert DD, Etchmendy E, Herrero R, Kleiboer A, Krieger T, García-Palacios A, Cerga-Pashoja A, Smoktunowicz E, Urech A, Vis C, Andersson G (2017) Attitudes towards digital treatment for depression. A European stakeholder survey. Internet Interv 8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2017.01.001
Schröder J, Berger T, Meyer B, Lutz W, Hautzinger M, Späth C, Eichenberg C, Klein JP, Moritz S (2017) Attitudes towards internet interventions among psychotherapists and individuals with mild to moderate depression symptoms. Cognit Ther Res 41(5):745–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9850-0
Surmann M, Bock EM, Krey E, Burmeister K, Arolt V, Lencer R (2017) Einstellungen gegenüber eHealth-angeboten in psychiatrie und psychotherapie. Eine Pilotumfrage auf dem DGPPN-Kongress 2014. Nervenarzt 88:1036–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-016-0208-8
Vigerland S, Ljótsson B, Bergdahl Gustafsson F, Hagert S, Thulin U, Andersson G, Serlachius E (2014) Attitudes towards the use of computerized cognitive behavior therapy (cCBT) with children and adolescents. A survey among Swedish mental health professionals. Internet Interv 1(3):111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2014.06.002
Olok GT, Yagos WO, Ovuga E (2015) Knowledge and attitudes of doctors towards e-health use in healthcare delivery in government and private hospitals in Northern Uganda: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 15:87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0209-8
Stallard P, Richardson T, Velleman S (2010) Clinicians’ attitudes towards the use of computerized cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) with children and adolescents. Behav Cogn Psychother 38(5):545–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465810000421
Gun SY, Titov N, Andrews G (2011) Acceptability of internet treatment of anxiety and depression. Australas Psychiatry 19(3):259–264. https://doi.org/10.3109/10398562.2011.562295
Ly KH, Trüschel A, Jarl L, Magnusson S, Windahl T, Johansson R, Carlbring P, Andersson G (2014) Behavioural activation versus mindfulness-based guided self-help treatment administered through a smartphone application: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 4(1):e003440. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003440
Wahle F, Kowatsch T, Fleisch E, Rufer M, Weidt S (2016) Mobile sensing and support for people with depression: a pilot trial in the wild. JMIR mHealth uHealth 4(3):e111. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.5960
Schmädeke S, Bischoff C (2015) Effects of smartphone-supported rehabilitation aftercare (eATROS) for depressive patients [Wirkungen smartphonegestützter psychosomatischer Rehabilitationsnachsorge (eATROS) bei depressiven Patienten]. Verhaltenstherapie 25(4):277–286. https://doi.org/10.1159/000441856
Watts S, Mackenzie A, Thomas C, Griskaitis A, Mewton L, Williams A, Andrews G (2013) CBT for depression: a pilot RCT comparing mobile phone vs. computer. BMC Psychiatry 13:49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9850-0
Arean PA, Hallgren KA, Jordan JT, Gazzaley A, Atkins DC, Heagerty PJ, Anguera JA (2016) The use and effectiveness of mobile apps for depression: results from a fully remote clinical trial. J Med Internet Res 18(12):e330. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6482
Lappalainen P, Kaipainen K, Lappalainen R, Hoffrén H, Myllymäki T, Kinnunen M-L, Mattila E, Happonen AP, Rusko H, Korhonen I (2013) Feasibility of a personal health technology-based psychological intervention for men with stress and mood problems: Randomized controlled pilot trial. J Med Internet Res 2(1):e1. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.2389
Mantani A, Kato T, Furukawa TA, Horikoshi M, Imai H, Hiroe T, Chino B, Funayama T, Yonemoto N, Zhou Q, Kawanishi N (2017) Smartphone cognitive behavioral therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for refractory depression: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 19(11):e373. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8602
Firth J, Torous J, Nicholas J, Carney R, Pratap A, Rosenbaum S, Sarris J (2017) The efficacy of smartphone-based mental health interventions for depressive symptoms: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Psychiatry 16(3):287–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20472
Menon V, Rajan TM, Sakar S (2017) Psychotherapeutic applications of mobile phone-based technologies: a systematic review of current research and trends. Indian J Psychol Med 39(1):4–11. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.198956
Andrews G, Cuijpers P, Craske MG, McEvoy P, Titov N (2010) Computer therapy for the anxiety and depressive disorders is effective, acceptable and practical health care: a meta-analysis. PLoS one 5(10):e13196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013196
Cuijpers P, Donker T, Johansson R, Mohr DC, van Straten A, Andersson G, Hempel S (2011) Self-guided psychological treatment for depressive symptoms. A meta-analysis. PLoS One 6(6):e21274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021274
Gaebel W, Großimlinghaus I, Mucic D, Maercker A, Zielasek J, Kerst A (2017) EPA guidance on eMental health interventions in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Eur Psychiatry 41:140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.01.001
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ (2017) Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res 17(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8
Cuijpers P, Kleiboer A, Karyotaki E, Riper H (2017) Internet and mobile interventions for depression: opportunities and challenges. Depress Anxiety 34(7):596–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22641
Hennemann S, Beutel ME, Zwerenz R (2017) Ready for eHealth? Health professionals’ acceptance and adoption of ehealth interventions in inpatient routine care. J Health Commun 22(3):274–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1284286
Giota KG, Kleftaras G (2014) Mental health apps. Innovations, risks and ethical considerations. ETSN 03:19–23. https://doi.org/10.4236/etsn.2014.33003
Karyotaki E, Ebert DD, Donkin L, Riper H, Twisk J, Burger S, Rozental A, Lange A, Williams AD, Zarski AC, Geraedts A, van Straten A, Kleiboer A, Meyer B, Ünlü Ince BB, Buntrock C, Lehr D, Snoek FJ, Andrews G, Andersson G, Choi I, Ruwaard J, Klein JP, Newby JM, Schröder J, Laferton JAC, van Bastelaar K, Imamura K, Vernmark K, Boß L, Sheeber LB, Kivi M, Berking M, Titov N, Carlbring P, Johansson R, Kenter R, Perini S, Moritz S, Nobis S, Berger T, Kaldo V, Forsell Y, Lindefors N, Kraepelien M, Björkelund C, Kawakami N, Cuijpers P (2018) Do guided internet-based interventions result in clinically relevant changes for patients with depression? An individual participant data meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 63:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.06.007
Eichenberg C, Kienzle K (2013) Psychotherapeuten und Internet. Einstellungen zu und Nutzung von therapeutischen Onlineangeboten im Behandlungsalltag. Psychotherapeut 58:485–493
Perle JG, Langsam LC, Randel A, Lutchman S, Levine AB, Odland AP, Nierenberg B, Marker CD (2013) Attitudes toward psychological telehealth: current and future clinical psychologists’ opinions of internet-based interventions. J Clin Psychol 69(1):100–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21912
Titzler I, Saruhanjan K, Berking M, Riper H, Ebert DD (2018) Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of blended psychotherapy for depression. A qualitative pilot study of therapists’ perspective. Internet Interv 12:150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2018.01.002
Donovan CL, Poole C, Boyes N, Redgate J, March S (2015) Australian mental health worker attitudes towards cCBT. What is the role of knowledge? Are there differences? Can we change them? Internet Interv 2(4):372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2015.09.001
Menachemi N, Brooks RG (2006) EHR and other IT adoption among physicians: results of a large-scale statewide analysis. J Healthc Inf Manag 20(3):79–87
Huguet A, Rao S, McGrath PJ, Wozney L, Wheaton M, Conrod J, Rozario S (2016) A systematic review of cognitive behavioral therapy and behavioral activation apps for depression. PLoS One 11(5):e0154248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154248
Olff M (2015) Mobile mental health: a challenging research agenda. Eur J Psychotraumatol 6:27882. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.27882
World Psychiatric Association (2017) WPA Position statement on eMental Health. http://www.wpanet.org/uploads/Position_Statement/WPA%20Position%20statement%20on%20eMental%20Health.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2018
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Arq Foundation (Diemen, The Netherlands), Mental Health Reform (Dublin, Ireland), Etablissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille-Métropole (Lille, France) and Aktionsbündnis Psychische Gesundheit (Berlin, Germany) for their support in distributing the survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
The survey was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kerst, A., Zielasek, J. & Gaebel, W. Smartphone applications for depression: a systematic literature review and a survey of health care professionals’ attitudes towards their use in clinical practice. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 270, 139–152 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-018-0974-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-018-0974-3