ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Mental health app crisis support assessment framework: development and pilot testing.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental health applications increasingly serve as stand-alone interventions or adjuncts to clinical care, yet their capacity to support users experiencing acute psychological distress remains poorly characterized. This study introduces the Mental Health App Crisis Support Assessment Framework (MHACSAF), a structured instrument for evaluating crisis support implementation in mental health apps, and reports findings from its application to six commercial AI-powered products. MHACSAF is grounded in suicide prevention guidance from the World Health Organization, evidence-based safety planning interventions, and established principles of digital health evaluation and accessibility. The framework comprises an eligibility screening step followed by seven scored dimensions totaling 65 possible points: ease of access, coverage and prioritization, hotlines and emergency services, content clarity, technical accessibility, localization, and awareness. Three licensed clinical psychologists independently evaluated Wysa, Youper, Flourish, Earkick, Replika, and Ash using iOS platforms between December 2025 and January 2026. Inter-rater reliability was strong (Fleiss' kappa = 0.87, 95% CI [0.71, 1.00]; ICC(2,1) = 0.94, 95% CI [0.83, 0.99]). Mean total scores ranged from 13.0 to 40.3 (M = 24.9, SD = 9.3); no application achieved 'Good' or 'Excellent' classification. Wysa performed best but still demonstrated gaps in accessibility, localization, and offline functionality. Technical accessibility for users with disabilities was nearly absent across products. Crisis resources were frequently buried behind conversational interfaces, and several apps delegated safety-critical information to external websites with broken or inaccessible links. These findings indicate that current AI mental health applications inadequately address user safety during psychological emergencies and suggest MHACSAF provides a reproducible methodology for benchmarking and improving crisis support implementations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.