13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mobile Health Technology Interventions for Suicide Prevention: Systematic Review

      review-article
      , DClinPsych 1 , 2 , , , MSc 1 , , MSc 3 , , DClinPsych 1 , , PhD 4 , , MA, 1 , , PhD 5
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR mHealth and uHealth
      JMIR Publications
      mHealth, systematic review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Digital interventions are proposed as one way by which effective treatments for self-harm and suicidal ideation may be improved and their scalability enhanced. Mobile devices offer a potentially powerful medium to deliver evidence-based interventions with greater specificity to the individual when the intervention is needed. The recent proliferation of publicly available mobile apps designed for suicide prevention underlines the need for robust evidence to promote safe practice.

          Objective

          This review aimed to examine the effectiveness of currently available mobile health (mHealth) technology tools in reducing suicide-specific outcomes.

          Methods

          The following databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and relevant sources of gray literature. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), pseudo-RCTs, and pre-post observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth technology in suicide prevention delivered via mobile computing and communication technology were included. Studies were included if they measured at least one suicide outcome variable (ie, suicidal ideation, suicidal intent, nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior, and suicidal behavior). A total of 2 review authors independently extracted data and assessed study suitability, in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, on July 31, 2018. Owing to the heterogeneity of outcomes found across studies, results were not amenable for pooled synthesis, and a meta-analysis was not performed. A narrative synthesis of the available research is presented here.

          Results

          A total of 7 studies met criteria for inclusion . Four published articles that reported on the effectiveness of the following mobile phone apps were included: iBobbly, Virtual Hope Box, BlueIce, and Therapeutic Evaluative Conditioning. Results demonstrated some positive impacts for individuals at elevated risk of suicide or self-harm, including reductions in depression, psychological distress, and self-harm and increases in coping self-efficacy. None of the apps evaluated demonstrated the ability to significantly decrease suicidal ideation compared with a control condition. In addition, 3 unpublished and recently completed trials also met criteria for inclusion in the review.

          Conclusions

          Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of stand-alone mHealth technology–based interventions in suicide prevention. The small number of studies reported in this review tentatively indicate that such tools may have a positive impact on suicide-specific outcomes. Future mHealth intervention evaluations would benefit from addressing the following 3 main methodological limitations : (1) heterogeneity of outcomes: a lack of standardized measurement of suicide outcomes across studies; (2) ecological validity: the tendency to exclude potential participants because of the elevated suicide risk may reduce generalizability within clinical settings; and (3) app regulation and definition: the lack of a standardized classification system for mHealth intervention type points to the need for better definition of the scope of such technologies to promote safe practice.

          Trial Registration

          PROSPERO CRD42017072899; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=72899

          International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

          RR2-10.2196/resprot.8635

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The efficacy of smartphone-based mental health interventions for depressive symptoms: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

          The rapid advances and adoption of smartphone technology presents a novel opportunity for delivering mental health interventions on a population scale. Despite multi-sector investment along with wide-scale advertising and availability to the general population, the evidence supporting the use of smartphone apps in the treatment of depression has not been empirically evaluated. Thus, we conducted the first meta-analysis of smartphone apps for depressive symptoms. An electronic database search in May 2017 identified 18 eligible randomized controlled trials of 22 smartphone apps, with outcome data from 3,414 participants. Depressive symptoms were reduced significantly more from smartphone apps than control conditions (g=0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.52, p<0.001), with no evidence of publication bias. Smartphone interventions had a moderate positive effect in comparison to inactive controls (g=0.56, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74), but only a small effect in comparison to active control conditions (g=0.22, 95% CI: 0.10-0.33). Effects from smartphone-only interventions were greater than from interventions which incorporated other human/computerized aspects along the smartphone component, although the difference was not statistically significant. The studies of cognitive training apps had a significantly smaller effect size on depression outcomes (p=0.004) than those of apps focusing on mental health. The use of mood monitoring softwares, or interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy, or apps incorporating aspects of mindfulness training, did not affect significantly study effect sizes. Overall, these results indicate that smartphone devices are a promising self-management tool for depression. Future research should aim to distil which aspects of these technologies produce beneficial effects, and for which populations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors Interview: development, reliability, and validity in an adolescent sample.

            The authors developed the Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors Interview (SITBI) and evaluated its psychometric properties. The SITBI is a structured interview that assesses the presence, frequency, and characteristics of a wide range of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors, including suicidal ideation, suicide plans, suicide gestures, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI). This initial study, based on the administration of the SITBI to 94 adolescents and young adults, suggested that the SITBI has strong interrater reliability (average kappa = .99, r = 1.0) and test-retest reliability (average kappa = .70, intraclass correlation coefficient = .44) over a 6-month period. Moreover, concurrent validity was demonstrated via strong correspondence between the SITBI and other measures of suicidal ideation (average kappa = .54), suicide attempt (kappa = .65), and NSSI (average kappa = .87). The authors concluded that the SITBI uniformly and comprehensively assesses a wide range of self-injury-related constructs and provides a new instrument that can be administered with relative ease in both research and clinical settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adolescent suicide and suicidal behavior.

              This review examines the descriptive epidemiology, and risk and protective factors for youth suicide and suicidal behavior. A model of youth suicidal behavior is articulated, whereby suicidal behavior ensues as a result of an interaction of socio-cultural, developmental, psychiatric, psychological, and family-environmental factors. On the basis of this review, clinical and public health approaches to the reduction in youth suicide and recommendations for further research will be discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                January 2020
                15 January 2020
                : 8
                : 1
                : e12516
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Psychology National University of Ireland Galway Galway Ireland
                [2 ] Psychology Department Health Service Executive Mid-West Ennis Ireland
                [3 ] Psychology Department Health Service Executive Mid-West Limerick Ireland
                [4 ] Discipline of Information Technology National University of Ireland Galway Galway Ireland
                [5 ] Insight-Centre Discipline of Information Technology National University of Ireland Galway Galway Ireland
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Ruth Melia ruth.melia@ 123456hse.ie
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1152-5510
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8161-4546
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4576-9828
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7070-1561
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7507-8617
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0832-6921
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9452-2293
                Article
                v8i1e12516
                10.2196/12516
                6996750
                31939744
                d5f9a211-b1d5-435b-866e-94fddff6782a
                ©Ruth Melia, Kady Francis, Emma Hickey, John Bogue, Jim Duggan, Mary O'Sullivan, Karen Young. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 15.01.2020.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 16 October 2018
                : 23 March 2019
                : 17 May 2019
                : 2 August 2019
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                mhealth,systematic review
                mhealth, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article