↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of online and mobile telephone applications (‘apps’) for the self-management of suicidal ideation and self-harm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
56 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
144 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
347 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of online and mobile telephone applications (‘apps’) for the self-management of suicidal ideation and self-harm: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1458-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrina Witt, Matthew J. Spittal, Gregory Carter, Jane Pirkis, Sarah Hetrick, Dianne Currier, Jo Robinson, Allison Milner

Abstract

Online and mobile telephone applications ('apps') have the potential to improve the scalability of effective interventions for suicidal ideation and self-harm. The aim of this review was therefore to investigate the effectiveness of digital interventions for the self-management of suicidal ideation or self-harm. Seven databases (Applied Science & Technology; CENTRAL; CRESP; Embase; Global Health; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; Medline) were searched to 31 March, 2017. Studies that examined the effectiveness of digital interventions for suicidal ideation and/or self-harm, or which reported outcome data for suicidal ideation and/or self-harm, within a randomised controlled trial (RCT), pseudo-RCT, or observational pre-test/post-test design were included in the review. Fourteen non-overlapping studies were included, reporting data from a total of 3,356 participants. Overall, digital interventions were associated with reductions for suicidal ideation scores at post-intervention. There was no evidence of a treatment effect for self-harm or attempted suicide. Most studies were biased in relation to at least one aspect of study design, and particularly the domains of participant, clinical personnel, and outcome assessor blinding. Performance and detection bias therefore cannot be ruled out. Digital interventions for suicidal ideation and self-harm may be more effective than waitlist control. It is unclear whether these reductions would be clinically meaningful at present. Further evidence, particularly with regards to the potential mechanisms of action of these interventions, as well as safety, is required before these interventions could recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 347 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 347 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 14%
Student > Master 44 13%
Researcher 41 12%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 47 14%
Unknown 116 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 98 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 7%
Social Sciences 22 6%
Computer Science 10 3%
Other 32 9%
Unknown 131 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2019.
All research outputs
#691,140
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#175
of 5,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,134
of 327,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#8
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.