Characteristics and Outcomes of mHealth Interventions in Psychosis: Systematic Mapping Review
Authors: Loh Pei Yi , Martinengo Laura , Heaukulani Creighton , Tan Xin Yang , Hng Moses , Cheah Yong Yin , Morris Robert J T , Tudor Car Lorainne , Lee Jimmy 
Published: October 2024

Background

Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have gained popularity in augmenting psychiatric care for adults with psychosis. Interest has grown in leveraging mHealth to empower individuals living with severe mental illness and extend continuity of care beyond the hospital to the community. However, reported outcomes have been mixed, likely attributed in part to the intervention and adopted outcomes, which affected between-study comparisons.

Objective

This study aimed to critically review outcome measures used to evaluate mHealth interventions for adults with psychosis in relation to the characteristics of mHealth interventions.

Methods

A systematic mapping review was conducted. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Libraries from 1973 to the present. Selection criteria included randomized controlled studies of mHealth interventions in adults diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen and extract data from included studies independently using a standardized form; disagreements were resolved by consensus with an independent reviewer. We report our findings in line with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

Results

A total of 1703 citations were screened; 29 publications reporting on 23 studies were included in this review. mHealth interventions for psychosis span a wide range, with psychological therapy being the most-deployed intervention (12/23, 52%), followed by psychoeducation (8/23, 35%) and active self-monitoring (8/23, 35%). Several mHealth interventions for psychosis targeted multiple pillars of biopsychosocial well-being (10/23, 43%); the bulk of interventions (16/23, 70%) incorporated features promoting users’ self-management. The majority of mHealth interventions were delivered through applications (14/23, 61%) as the main medium and smartphones (17/23, 74%) as the main channel of delivery. Interventions were primarily administered in the outpatient and community settings (16/23, 70%); many were also blended with in-person sessions (11/23, 48%) or guided remotely (6/23, 26%) by persons, including health care providers or trained peer supporters. The severity of psychosis-related symptoms (21/23, 91%) was the most prevalent outcome, of which positive symptoms (13/23, 57%), mood and anxiety (10/23, 43%), and overall psychopathology severity (9/23, 39%) were most commonly measured. Patient-centric outcomes, including well-being (17/23, 74%)—particularly quality of life (10/23, 43%)—and user experience (15/23, 65%), including feasibility (7/23, 30%), acceptability (7/23, 30%), and engagement (7/23, 26%). Notably, outcome choices remained diverse despite stratification by type of mHealth intervention.

Conclusions

mHealth interventions for psychosis encompass a wide range of modalities and use outcome measures that probe various social and behavioral determinants of health. These should be considered complex interventions, and a holistic evaluation approach combining clinical and patient-centric outcomes is recommended.