UC Irvine

The current manuscript is a commentary on "Mobile phone-based interventions for mental health: A systematic meta-review of 14 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials". Although embedded within a nuanced discussion, one of the primary conclusions readers have taken from the meta-analysis was "we failed to find convincing evidence in support of any mobile phone-based intervention on any outcome", which seems to contradict the entirety of the evidence presented when taken out of context of the methods applied. In evaluating whether the area produced "convincing evidence of efficacy," the authors used a standard that appeared destined to fail. Specifically, the authors required "no evidence of publication bias", which is a standard that would be unlikely to be found in any area of psychology or medicine. Second, the authors required low to moderate heterogeneity in effect sizes when comparing interventions with fundamentally different and entirely dissimilar target mechanisms. However absent these 2 untenable criteria, the authors actually found highly suggestive evidence of efficacy (N > 1,000, p < .000001) in (1) anxiety; (2) depression; (3) smoking cessation; (4) stress; and (5) quality of life. Perhaps the appropriate conclusions would be that existing syntheses of data testing smartphone intervention suggests that these interventions are promising, but additional work is needed to separate what types of interventions and mechanisms are more promising. Evidence syntheses will be useful as the field matures, but such syntheses should focus on smartphone treatments that are created equal (i.e., similar intent, features, goals, and linkages in a continuum of care model) or use standards for evidence that promote rigorous evaluation while allowing identification of resources that can help those in need.