Smartphone apps for eating disorders: A systematic review of evidence‐based content and application of user‐adjusted analyses

Abstract

Objective To examine the frequency of evidence‐based treatment elements in popular smartphone apps for eating disorders (EDs), and to characterize the extent to which real‐world users encounter different elements. Method We searched the Apple App Store and Google Play Store for apps offering treatment or support to individuals with EDs. Then, we created a codebook of 47 elements found in evidence‐based treatments for EDs. We examined the presence or absence of each element within each ED app. We also acquired estimates of the monthly active users (MAU) of each app. Results The ED apps (n = 28) included a median of nine elements of empirically supported treatments (mean = 9.46, SD = 6.28). Four apps accounted for 96% of all MAU. MAU‐adjusted analyses revealed that several elements are reaching more users than raw frequency tallies would suggest. For example, assessments were included in 32% of apps, but 84% of users used an app with assessments. Similar trends were found for cognitive restructuring (21% of apps, 56% of MAU), activity scheduling (39%, 57%), and self‐monitoring (14%, 46%). Problem solving, exposure, and relapse prevention strategies, elements that are prominent in face‐to‐face empirically supported treatments, were rarely included in the apps. Discussion Evidence‐based content is commonly included in ED apps, with certain elements reaching more users than others. Additionally, the top four apps are responsible for nearly all active users. We recommend that ED clinicians and researchers familiarize themselves with these apps—those that patients are most likely to encounter.

A systematic review of dialectical behavior therapy mobile apps for content and usability

“…Another plausible explanation is that users generally tend to gravitate toward a small number of highly engaging and well-advertised apps. Our findings are not unique to DBT apps: previous research has found similar distributions of active users in apps for depression and anxiety [35], eating disorders [36], and other health conditions [27]. Thus, the large differences between popular and unpopular apps may not be as surprising as it may appear at first glance.…”

Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Engaging with a Digital Intervention among Those with Food Insecurity, Binge Eating, and Obesity

“…Participants also described their preferences for intervention features. While many suggestions like education and self-monitoring are common evidence-based elements of apps for eating disorders [ 19 ], these results offer informative specifications for how such components are preferred to be packaged in a digital intervention for this population. For example, results suggest the importance of supporting people in preparing affordable meals (e.g., that stretch beyond a single meal) and that account for the time and expense of obtaining foods.…”

The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality

“…Two earlier systematic appraisals of the quality of commercially available eating disorder apps conclud ed that very few of them incorporated components of evidence based treatments, with some even providing potentially harmful information 165,166 . However, four commercially available eating disorder apps (Mental Health Tests, Recovery Road, Rise Up, and Psychiatry Pro-Diagnosis, Info, Treatment, CBT & DBT)each of which are grounded in an evidencebased framework -account for 96% of monthly active users according to a recent review 167 , indicating that those resorting to apps to help manage their eating disorder are likely exposed to credible information.…”