| Title |
Mobile Mental Health: Navigating New Rules and Regulations for Digital Tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Psychiatry Reports, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11920-016-0726-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Armontrout, John Torous, Matthew Fisher, Eric Drogin, Thomas Gutheil |
| Abstract |
Mobile health (mHealth) apps are becoming much more widely available. As more patients learn about and download apps, clinicians are sure to face more questions about the role these apps can play in treatment. Clinicians thus need to familiarize themselves with the clinical and legal risks that apps may introduce. Regulatory rules and organizations that oversee the safety and efficacy of mHealth apps are currently fragmentary in nature and clinicians should pay special attention to categories of apps which are currently exempt from significant regulation. Uniform HIPAA protection does not apply to personal health data that are shared with apps in many contexts which creates a number of clinically relevant privacy and security concerns. Clinicians should also consider several relatively novel potential adverse clinical outcomes and liability concerns that may be relevant to specific categories of apps, including apps that target (i) medication adherence, (ii) collection of self-reported data, (iii) collection of passive data, and (iv) generation of treatment recommendations for psychotherapeutic and behavioral interventions. Considering these potential pitfalls (and disclosing them to patients as a part of obtaining informed consent) is necessary as clinicians consider incorporating apps into treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 41% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 140 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 45 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 51 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,573,662
of 24,988,543 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#309
of 1,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,881
of 351,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,988,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.