Suicide prevention and depression apps’ suicide risk assessment and management: a systematic assessment of adherence to clinical guidelines

Abstract

BackgroundThere are an estimated 800,000 suicides per year globally, and approximately 16,000,000 suicide attempts. Mobile apps may help address the unmet needs of people at risk. We assessed adherence of suicide prevention advice in depression management and suicide prevention apps to six evidence-based clinical guideline recommendations: mood and suicidal thought tracking, safety plan development, recommendation of activities to deter suicidal thoughts, information and education, access to support networks, and access to emergency counseling.MethodsA systematic assessment of depression and suicide prevention apps available in Google Play and Apple’s App Store was conducted. Apps were identified by searching 42matters in January 2019 for apps launched or updated since January 2017 using the terms “depression,” “depressed,” “depress,” “mood disorders,” “suicide,” and “self-harm.” General characteristics of apps, adherence with six suicide prevention strategies identified in evidence-based clinical guidelines using a 50-question checklist developed by the study team, and trustworthiness of the app based on HONcode principles were appraised and reported as a narrative review, using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe initial search yielded 2690 potentially relevant apps. Sixty-nine apps met inclusion criteria and were systematically assessed. There were 20 depression management apps (29%), 3 (4%) depression management and suicide prevention apps, and 46 (67%) suicide prevention apps. Eight (12%) depression management apps were chatbots. Only 5/69 apps (7%) incorporated all six suicide prevention strategies. Six apps (6/69, 9%), including two apps available in both app stores and downloaded more than one million times each, provided an erroneous crisis helpline number. Most apps included emergency contact information (65/69 apps, 94%) and direct access to a crisis helpline through the app (46/69 apps, 67%).ConclusionsNon-existent or inaccurate suicide crisis helpline phone numbers were provided by mental health apps downloaded more than 2 million times. Only five out of 69 depression and suicide prevention apps offered all six evidence-based suicide prevention strategies. This demonstrates a failure of Apple and Google app stores, and the health app industry in self-governance, and quality and safety assurance. Governance levels should be stratified by the risks and benefits to users of the app, such as when suicide prevention advice is provided.

Patient-reported outcomes in major depressive disorder with suicidal ideation: a real-world data analysis using PatientsLikeMe platform

“…Use of digital assessment tools would help patients to report and collect symptoms' severity data at their peak. However, currently available apps often lack clinical reliability requirements [43].…”

The effect of acupuncture on depression and its correlation with metabolic alterations

“…A failure to treat depression adequately effects patients both mentally and physically. [ 1 , 2 ] Antidepressants are commonly used in clinic based on the monogramming neurotransmitter hypothesis of depression. Aside from the long-lasting beneficial effects, antidepressants may cause clear unfavorable responses and side effects.…”

Actionable health app evaluation: translating expert frameworks into objective metrics

“…A meta-analysis of standalone mental health apps investigated published literature on randomized controlled trials of mental health apps and found such small effect sizes that the authors could not recommend standalone psychological interventions at all 29 . Most concerning, a study of 69 apps for depression found six apps, downloaded more than two million times, provided inaccurate or non-existent suicide crisis helpline phone numbers 30 —underscoring the importance of ensuring apps actually do what they claim as a simple but critical bar for evaluation. These examples reveal that beneficence is not necessarily the norm when it comes to claims of app effectiveness, underscoring the need for a thorough, comprehensive system for evaluation.…”