This study describes a new way to rank digital mental health apps. It is not a test of whether the apps work. The authors built a scoring framework using two decision-making methods, Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. They applied it to 62 apps and 274 evaluation records.
The framework gave the most weight to clinical relevance (0.352), followed by ethics and privacy (0.284), usability (0.211), and engagement (0.153). Within those areas, the biggest single factors were clinical expert involvement (0.132), having a privacy policy (0.118), and following guidelines (0.115).
When the method ranked the apps, the top three scored 0.842, 0.816, and 0.791 on a closeness measure. A sensitivity check showed the rankings stayed stable, with correlations above 0.90.
No safety information was reported, and the study did not test app effectiveness. The main takeaway is that this is a proposed way to compare apps, not proof that any app improves mental health. It may help developers, clinicians, and policymakers think about quality, but it does not replace clinical evidence.
Common questions
What did this study actually measure?
It measured how a new scoring method ranks 62 digital mental health apps. The method used 274 evaluation records and weighted clinical relevance, ethics and privacy, usability, and engagement. It did not measure whether the apps improve mental health symptoms.
What mattered most in the rankings?
Clinical relevance had the highest weight at 0.352. Ethics and privacy came next at 0.284, then usability at 0.211, and engagement at 0.153. The top single factors were clinical expert involvement, privacy policy availability, and guideline compliance.
Does this mean the top-ranked apps are safe and effective?
No. The study did not report safety outcomes or clinical effectiveness. It only shows how the apps scored under this framework. Talk with your doctor if you are considering a mental health app for treatment.
Who could use this ranking method?
The authors say it could help developers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers identify and promote high-quality digital mental health technologies. It is a practical guide for comparing apps, not a substitute for clinical evidence.