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 governments investment in traditional but costly mental health care.
Heres why we need more conversation and rigorous evaluation of e-mental health.
泭
Technology to help mental health
There are 33 mental health apps listed on Aotearoas泭泭site, and another new bilingual mindfulness app was泭.
App development has accelerated since the pandemic, with three funded through the NZ$500 million泭泭health package in 2020.
Digital infrastructure and e-medicine is a key priority nationally: this year alone, the New 厙ぴ勛圖government earmarked over $600 million to invest in泭泭in the health system.
Supporters claim technology can counter isolation, anxiety, provide therapy and泭. And while there are some who benefit from泭,泭泭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.
泭
Dependent on access to technology
泭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泭泭and often exclude the people who most need mental health support 泭, people with low incomes, and those with severe mental health problems. These high-need groups have been identified as those泭.
Even when e-health solutions are provided free to the user through government health funding and investment,泭. 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泭泭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泭泭as well as clinicians can. And while there is often strong initial uptake and use,泭.
泭
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泭.
Fewer studies assess whether e-mental health interventions泭泭or strengthen mental health long term. When e-mental health interventions are evaluated rigorously, usage in a trial setting is泭泭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泭泭period for tautahi Christchurch, and泭.
Apps are not relational and rarely support building social connections and peer friendships.泭泭has shown that, most of all, people with mental distress need support to build relationships,泭,泭泭and have the opportunity to泭泭mental health care.
Addressing mental health also requires moving past the individual to the collective. It requires action to address泭泭factors that contribute to a persons 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泭.泭
