Open AccessThe Current State and Validity of Digital Assessment Tools for Psychiatry: Systematic Review
Author(s) -
Nayra A Martin-Key,
Benedetta Spadaro,
Erin Funnell,
Ernest Barker,
Thea Schei,
Jakub Tomasik,
Sabine Bahn
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
jmir mental health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2368-7959
DOI - 10.2196/32824
Subject(s) - psycinfo , cinahl , medline , cochrane library , systematic review , mental health , medicine , psychiatry , digital health , population , major depressive disorder , meta analysis , clinical psychology , health care , psychology , psychological intervention , mood , pathology , environmental health , political science , law , economics , economic growth
Background Given the role digital technologies are likely to play in the future of mental health care, there is a need for a comprehensive appraisal of the current state and validity (ie, screening or diagnostic accuracy) of digital mental health assessments. Objective The aim of this review is to explore the current state and validity of question-and-answer–based digital tools for diagnosing and screening psychiatric conditions in adults. Methods This systematic review was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework and was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ASSIA, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were systematically searched for articles published between 2005 and 2021. A descriptive evaluation of the study characteristics and digital solutions and a quantitative appraisal of the screening or diagnostic accuracy of the included tools were conducted. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the revised tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria, with the most frequently evaluated conditions encompassing generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and any depressive disorder. Most of the studies used digitized versions of existing pen-and-paper questionnaires, with findings revealing poor to excellent screening or diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity=0.32-1.00, specificity=0.37-1.00, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.57-0.98) and a high risk of bias for most of the included studies. Conclusions The field of digital mental health tools is in its early stages, and high-quality evidence is lacking. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/25382