Background Mobile health (mHealth) platforms show promise in the management of mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. This has resulted in an abundance of mHealth platforms available for research or commercial use. Objective The objective of this review is to characterize the current state of mHealth platforms designed for anxiety or depression that are available for research, commercial use, or both. Methods A systematic review was conducted using a two-pronged approach: searching relevant literature with prespecified search terms to identify platforms in published research and simultaneously searching 2 major app stores—Google Play Store and Apple App Store—to identify commercially available platforms. Key characteristics of the mHealth platforms were synthesized, such as platform name, targeted condition, targeted group, purpose, technology type, intervention type, commercial availability, and regulatory information. Results The literature and app store searches yielded 169 and 179 mHealth platforms, respectively. Most platforms developed for research purposes were designed for depression (116/169, 68.6%), whereas the app store search reported a higher number of platforms developed for anxiety (Android: 58/179, 32.4%; iOS: 27/179, 15.1%). The most common purpose of platforms in both searches was treatment (literature search: 122/169, 72.2%; app store search: 129/179, 72.1%). With regard to the types of intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy and referral to care or counseling emerged as the most popular options offered by the platforms identified in the literature and app store searches, respectively. Most platforms from both searches did not have a specific target age group. In addition, most platforms found in app stores lacked clinical and real-world evidence, and a small number of platforms found in the published research were available commercially. Conclusions A considerable number of mHealth platforms designed for anxiety or depression are available for research, commercial use, or both. The characteristics of these mHealth platforms greatly vary. Future efforts should focus on assessing the quality—utility, safety, and effectiveness—of the existing platforms and providing developers, from both commercial and research sectors, a reporting guideline for their platform description and a regulatory framework to facilitate the development, validation, and deployment of effective mHealth platforms.

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) platforms show promise in the management of mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. This has resulted in an abundance of mHealth platforms available for research or commercial use. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to characterize the current state of mHealth platforms designed for anxiety and/or depression that are available for research, commercial use or both. METHODS A systematic review was conducted using a two-pronged approach. (i) A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO was conducted to identify platforms available for research purposes. (ii) A simultaneous search of two major mobile app stores – Apple App Store and Google Play Store – to identify commercially available platforms. Key characteristics of the mHealth platforms such as platform name, targeted condition, targeted group, purpose, technology type, intervention type, commercial availability, regulatory information were synthesized. RESULTS The literature and app stores searches yielded 169 and 179 mHealth platforms respectively. Most platforms developed for research purposes were designed for depression (n=113) whereas the app stores search reported a higher number of platforms were developed for anxiety (n=58 and n=27 for Android and iOS operating systems, respectively). The most common purpose of platforms in both searches was treatment (n=122 and n=129 for the literature and app stores searches, respectively). In regard to the types of intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy and referral to care/counselling emerged as the most popular options offered by the platforms identified in the literature and app stores searches, respectively. Most platforms from both searches did not have a specific target age group. Additionally, most platforms found in the app stores lacked clinical and real-world evidence, while only small number of platforms found in published research were available commercially. CONCLUSIONS A considerable number of mHealth platforms designed for anxiety and/or depression are available for research, commercial use or both. Characteristics of these mHealth platforms vary greatly. Future effort should focus on accessing the quality – utility, safety and effectiveness – of the existing platforms and providing developers, from both commercial and research sectors alike, a reporting guideline for their platform description as well as a regulatory framework to facilitate the development, validation and deployment of effective mHealth platforms. CLINICALTRIAL CRD42020193956