Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Hybrid Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS framework provides a systematic method for ranking digital mental health applicationsNew Method Ranks Mental Health Apps By Clinical Relevance

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Use the hybrid Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS framework to prioritize high-quality digital mental health applications.

This guideline introduces a methodological framework combining Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to evaluate and rank digital mental health applications. The scope of the study involved 62 applications and 274 evaluation records to establish a ranking system based on specific criteria weights.

The framework identifies clinical relevance as the highest weighted factor (0.352), followed by ethics and privacy (0.284), usability (0.211), and engagement (0.153). Subcriteria such as clinical expert involvement (0.132), privacy policy availability (0.118), and guideline compliance (0.115) were also analyzed. The TOPSIS analysis yielded closeness coefficients of 0.842, 0.816, and 0.791 for the top three ranked applications, while sensitivity analysis showed Spearman correlation coefficients exceeding 0.90.

The primary utility of this framework is to provide practical guidance for developers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers to identify high-quality digital mental health technologies. It is important to note that this study evaluates a methodology for ranking applications and does not provide evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of the applications themselves.

How this fits prior evidence

This guideline addresses a gap in the systematic evaluation of digital mental health tools. While previous coverage noted that chatbots may offer potential short-term benefits for mental health conditions and that BCI interventions show technical feasibility, there has been no established methodology provided to rank these technologies. This framework provides a structured way to identify high-quality tools among the various digital interventions mentioned in prior evidence.

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.

What this means for you:
This is a proposed method for ranking mental health apps, not proof that any app works.

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.

Study Details

Study typeGuideline
EvidenceLevel 5
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundThe rapid growth of digital mental health applications has created a need for comprehensive evaluation approaches that simultaneously consider clinical effectiveness, user experience, and ethical requirements. Existing assessment methods often focus on limited aspects of application quality and may not adequately capture uncertainty in expert judgments.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and apply a hybrid Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) framework for the user-centered evaluation and ranking of digital mental health applications.MethodsA publicly available Mobile Health Apps Evaluation Dataset comprising 62 applications and 274 evaluation records was analyzed. Four main criteria and twelve subcriteria were established through expert consultation, including usability, engagement, clinical relevance, and ethics and privacy. An expert panel consisting of 18 specialists from public health, healthcare, digital health, health informatics, and user experience fields participated in the weighting process. Fuzzy AHP was employed to determine criteria weights under uncertainty, while TOPSIS was used to rank the selected applications. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the ranking outcomes.ResultsClinical relevance received the highest importance weight (0.352), followed by ethics and privacy (0.284), usability (0.211), and engagement (0.153). Among the subcriteria, clinical expert involvement (0.132), privacy policy availability (0.118), and guideline compliance (0.115) were identified as the most influential factors. The TOPSIS analysis ranked A1, A2, and A3 as the highest-performing applications, with closeness coefficients of 0.842, 0.816, and 0.791, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated strong ranking stability across alternative weighting scenarios, with Spearman correlation coefficients exceeding 0.90.ConclusionThe proposed hybrid Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS framework provides a robust and transparent approach for evaluating digital mental health applications. The findings highlight the importance of clinical credibility, privacy protection, and evidence-based design in determining application quality. The framework offers practical guidance for developers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers seeking to identify and promote high-quality digital mental health technologies.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.