But the increasing investment in e-mental health apps can ignore the shortcomings of technology.
As both a practitioner and researcher promoting mental health in communities, I see policy makers and funders dazzled by shiny new apps, which can divert the government鈥檚 investment in traditional 鈥 but costly 鈥 mental health care.
Here鈥檚 why we need more conversation and rigorous evaluation of e-mental health.
听
Technology to help mental health
There are 33 mental health apps listed on Aotearoa鈥檚听听site, and another new bilingual mindfulness app was听.
App development has accelerated since the pandemic, with three funded through the NZ$500 million听听health package in 2020.
Digital infrastructure and e-medicine is a key priority nationally: this year alone, the New 麻豆传媒团队government earmarked over $600 million to invest in听听in the health system.
Supporters claim technology can counter isolation, anxiety, provide therapy and听. And while there are some who benefit from听,听听to develop and test e-mental health interventions.
A key challenge is that individual technological solutions build on the underlying assumption that individuals are responsible for their own health outcomes, without addressing the structural, political and social causes of ill-health.
听
Dependent on access to technology
听are described as the most obvious advantages of local and international apps like Aroha Chatbot, Mentemia and Happify.
Yet while mental health apps might be affordable for a middle class resident of Auckland, Ahmedabad or Apia, e-mental health solutions depend on people being able to afford technology platforms (like smart phones) and data plans to drive them.
Digital technologies听听and often exclude the people who most need mental health support 鈥撎, people with low incomes, and those with severe mental health problems. These high-need groups have been identified as those听.
Even when e-health solutions are provided free to the user through government health funding and investment,听. This means mental health funding supports graphic design and tech companies instead of those who provide person-to-person care, which we already know is central for good mental health.
Other challenges that have emerged for large-scale implementation of e-mental health options include听听such as ensuring apps meet quality standards, and how such apps can be used across national borders. Apps also may not keep pace with new evidence and听听as well as clinicians can. And while there is often strong initial uptake and use,听.
听
Do the apps actually work?
Beyond the issues of access, other key questions need to be asked: do mental health apps work, and who do they work for?
There are clearly benefits for some people to have access to some form of immediate assistance via their phone or computer. But most research evaluating e-mental health care only looks at whether apps are听.
Fewer studies assess whether e-mental health interventions听听or strengthen mental health long term. When e-mental health interventions are evaluated rigorously, usage in a trial setting is听听compared to usage in the real world.
However pixels are not people, and e-mental health care is not a substitute for the genuine human connection that is core to mental health recovery. Human connection was identified as听听period for 艑tautahi Christchurch, and听.
Apps are not relational and rarely support building social connections and peer friendships.听听has shown that, most of all, people with mental distress need support to build relationships,听,听听and have the opportunity to听听mental health care.
Addressing mental health also requires moving past the individual to the collective. It requires action to address听听factors that contribute to a person鈥檚 mental health.
Serious and complex global problems such as obesity, gender inequality, poor housing, colonialism, racism and barriers to social connectedness are the biggest causes of poor mental health. Apps can help some people as an adjunct to psycho-social care, but they cannot replace it.
This article was originally published on听.听
