This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Reviews in Digital Mental Health (287) Digital Mental Health Interventions, e-Mental Health and Cyberpsychology (2083) Bipolar Disorders (72) Depression and Mood Disorders; Suicide Prevention (1668) Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) (399)

Published on in Vol 12 (2025)

This is a member publication of University of Nottingham (Jisc)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/79500, first published .
Adverse Events of Mood Monitoring and Ambulatory Assessment in Depression and Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Adverse Events of Mood Monitoring and Ambulatory Assessment in Depression and Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Adverse Events of Mood Monitoring and Ambulatory Assessment in Depression and Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors of this article:

Laurence Astill Wright1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Jonathan Monk-Cunliffe2 Author Orcid Image ;   Boliang Guo1, 3, 4, 5 Author Orcid Image ;   Richard Morriss1, 3, 4, 5 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    1Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, United Kingdom

    2Centre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

    3NIHR ARC East Midlands, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

    4Nottingham NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

    5NIHR MindTech Medical Technology Collaborative, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

    Corresponding Author:

    Laurence Astill Wright, MRCPsych


    Background: Mood monitoring and ambulatory assessment offer improvements in measuring mood and behavior for mental health research and clinical practice. However, concerns about adverse effects and usability may hinder their implementation.

    Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the prevalence of adverse events, barriers and facilitators to use, and suggestions for improvement in quantitative mood monitoring studies involving people with depression and bipolar disorder.

    Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 77 quantitative studies that used mood monitoring or ambulatory assessment in depression and bipolar disorder, assessing adverse events, barriers and facilitators to use, and suggestions for improvement. Adverse events data were pooled to identify prevalence.

    Results: Of the 77 studies, 15 (19%) reported adverse events, and 20 (26%) reported usability issues. Pooled prevalence of adverse events was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06; P<.001). Specific adverse effects included increased burden or stress (0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07; P<.001), mood worsening (0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.02; P=.001), self-harm (0.05, 95% CI-0.02 to 0.10; P=.007), and hospitalization (0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.09; P=.26). The top facilitators were perceived helpfulness and ease of use, the top barriers included technical challenges and the time-consuming nature of the interventions, and the top suggested improvement was personalization.

    Conclusions: A small number of mood monitoring or ambulatory assessment users experienced negative psychological effects; however, we were unable to infer causality. Due to the severe underreporting of adverse events as well as heterogeneity and publication bias in the included studies, there was limited certainty in the prevalence, duration, and severity of these adverse events. More systematic monitoring of adverse events is needed to optimize safety and usability. Many mood monitoring protocols may require additional development to decrease adverse events and improve acceptability.

    Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023396473; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023396473

    JMIR Ment Health 2025;12:e79500

    doi:10.2196/79500

    Keywords

    depression; bipolar disorder; digital mental health; ecological momentary assessment; EMA; mood monitoring; ambulatory assessment; mood tracking; adverse events; adverse effects; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PRISMA 


    This review analyzes adverse effects associated with mood monitoring, mood tracking, and ambulatory assessment in people with unipolar depression and bipolar disorder (BD). Ambulatory assessment encompasses a diverse set of methods that use mobile technology to collect repeated measurements from participants, often in real time and in natural settings [1]. It includes mood monitoring, remote measurement technologies (eg, wearables that passively collect data), and ecological momentary assessment (EMA; a more intensive form of data collection involving multiple reports per day [2]). Some studies of mood monitoring also fall under EMA, remote measurement, or ambulatory assessment, and there is definitional overlap among these approaches. Mood monitoring can be used as an intervention (in both randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and nonrandomized studies) or as a method of outcome assessment (also in both RCTs and nonrandomized studies).

    Technological advances (eg, wearables and smartphone sensors) have improved the potential of mood monitoring via novel methods of active (manual input) and passive (automatic) data collection [3]. These measures have many promising potential use cases, but smartphone-based ambulatory assessment tools may present unique risks, particularly in populations considered vulnerable [4]. While ambulatory assessment, mood monitoring, and EMA are performed in diverse populations for a wide variety of reasons (eg, dietary studies in healthy volunteers [5]), we chose to focus on people with unipolar depression and BD because evidence suggests that the risks in this population are unique [6,7]. Ambulatory assessment in psychiatric disorder also presents unique opportunities as well as challenges, given the difficulty of measuring rapidly shifting psychopathology with conventional measurement scales [8].

    The risks of mood monitoring can be higher in self-guided apps, which have fewer built-in safety mechanisms to monitor user safety in real time [9]. Research on psychological treatments has historically focused on benefits rather than any negative psychological experiences [10]. Awareness of adverse events from internet- or app-based interventions is growing, and key academics have proposed consensus statements to guide future research on adverse events in this context [9,11,12]. This includes how to report, assess, and define adverse effects. The occurrence of adverse events may or may not be directly related to the treatment being used, and this review cannot assess causality [9,10]. Adverse effects of psychological interventions can range from mild experiences (eg, privacy concerns and frustration) to severe outcomes (eg, hospitalization, suicidality, and self-harm) [10].

    Previous research has raised concerns that self-monitoring protocols could contribute to the maintenance of depression in some participants due to a variety of mechanisms [6,13,14]. The protocols could worsen negative processing bias, as participants confront their distressing experiences on a daily basis. It could be a painful reminder of their mental health problems, for example, or cause them distress if they realize that their mood is worsening and feel powerless to change it. The process could also be a time-consuming burden to them that diverts energy from more therapeutic activities. This could partially explain the occasionally occasionally high attrition rates and poor adherence observed in some interventions [15]. There has been little research examining adverse events from ambulatory assessment use or self-monitoring activities. Fundamental questions remain about the negative effects of mood monitoring interventions and how they might be improved to maximize their usefulness for people with depression or BD. Mixed methods research offers good potential to elucidate some of these factors [16,17].

    It is important to consider the risks to maximize the potential benefits of these advanced technologies. The promising potential applications of these electronic tools are summarized briefly here. They may improve on existing research methods by decreasing participant burden and allowing for a higher quality and granularity of mood assessment at decreased economic cost. They may also improve the recall bias associated with some measures of psychopathology [18]. They may help in the treatment of depressive illness by detecting early behavioral change and allowing earlier intervention, potentially allowing individuals with depression to self-manage their condition. They may also help define clinical goals collaboratively with clinicians or be used as research tools to identify digital depressive phenotypes to potentially improve treatment personalization in mental health care. While compliance and acceptability have been studied extensively [7,15,19], there is limited understanding of the adverse effects of these ambulatory assessment approaches in clinical mental health care or research [20].

    This is the first systematic review, to our knowledge, that assesses and quantifies adverse events in ambulatory assessment and mood monitoring studies. Specifically, we aimed to quantify the prevalence of adverse events and explore barriers and facilitators to use as well as any suggested improvements to identify common themes that may aid or hinder engagement with mood monitoring protocols. We chose to examine adverse events in studies where mood monitoring was used as an intervention (in both RCTs and nonrandomized studies) or as a method of outcome assessment (also in both RCTs and nonrandomized studies) because both these use cases are important to people with BD and depression, and both use cases have reported qualitative data on adverse events [6]. As we reviewed evidence of varying types, we are unable to make any definitive comments on the causality of the adverse events.


    We used a methodology based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and completed a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist (Checklist 1). The study was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42023396473) [21].

    Inclusion Criteria

    We included studies if they met the following criteria: they involved self-monitoring, EMA, or repeated symptom assessment in people with BD or depression over a minimum period of 3 months, with symptom ratings conducted at least weekly. Each study was required to use a validated measure of mood or to validate the chosen measure against an established mood measure. Studies published in any language were eligible and could be either digital or nondigital, although we anticipated that the majority of studies would use digital technologies. We included RCTs or nonrandomized studies with 20 or more participants with BD or depression [22]. We chose a cutoff of 20 participants to include mood monitoring protocols that were closer to clinical implementation (eg, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence frequently excludes studies of fewer than 20 participants in its reviews and guideline documents). Studies with fewer than 20 participants were also considered unlikely to have sufficient data on adverse events. We searched gray literature (eg, conference abstracts, dissertations, policy literature, and reports identified through ProQuest and Google Scholar [for details, refer to the next subsection]) for unpublished studies that were eligible for inclusion.

    Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

    The complete search strategy is presented in Multimedia Appendix 1. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest SciTech Premium Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and Google Scholar using the defined search terms. The initial search was conducted on March 3, 2023, and updated on October 28, 2024 [23]. All abstracts were appraised by two screeners, and any disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached, with adjudication by a third independent screener if required. The full text of potentially relevant papers was retrieved, and if unavailable, the corresponding author was contacted. To determine whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, the full text was reviewed separately by two authors, again resolving discrepancies through discussion or, if necessary, consultation with a third author. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews [13,14,24-31] were also screened to identify additional eligible studies. Key authors were contacted to inquire about any ongoing or unpublished studies that might meet the inclusion criteria.

    Data Extraction

    Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria using identical data extraction forms. Any irregularities in the data extraction were discussed, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. No deviation from the protocol registered with PROSPERO occurred. We defined an adverse event as any untoward or unintended medical occurrence in a participant, regardless of whether it was related to the intervention or investigation [32]. All adverse events were included in the results and assessed for relatedness to the mood monitoring protocol by two psychiatrists. Those deemed possibly related were then meta-analyzed. Because of confounding factors in the expected psychiatric deterioration in individuals with relapsing-remitting conditions, we were not able to make definitive inferences about adverse event causality.

    Assessment of Study Bias

    The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) was used for RCTs [33], and the Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool (ROBINS-I) [34] was used for nonrandomized studies. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers, and any disagreements were resolved via discussion.

    Synthesis of Results

    For quantitative data, studies were grouped, where possible, according to the variable assessed (eg, adverse events such as self-harm or subjective worsening of mood), and data were pooled in a meta-analysis. We conducted a separate analysis for specific adverse events because we hypothesized that their prevalence would vary. The results of each primary study were pooled by means of an inverse variance–weighted approach with random or fixed effects models, informed by examination of between-study heterogeneity. Stata metan code was used to perform the analysis for proportion data. Comparisons with only 2 studies were excluded from any separate analysis.

    For qualitative data, papers were read and reread by two independent reviewers. We assessed qualitative reporting of adverse events in the quantitative papers because we hypothesized that quantitative reporting might be limited [12]. Second-order constructs were extracted and managed using Microsoft Excel. Any disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached. Constructs were reviewed to assess how the themes juxtaposed and compared across studies. Reviewers independently reviewed the second-order constructs [35] and compiled third-order constructs [35,36] that summarized and encapsulated the various themes across the studies using NVivo 12 (Lumivero) [37]. These constructs were then refined through discussion between researchers until a shared understanding was reached.

    The guidelines for meta-ethnography outlined by Noblit and Hare [38] were used to conduct the analysis. Noblit and Hare [38] proposed three ways to synthesize data: (1) reciprocal translation (where the findings of one study are understood in terms of findings expressed in other studies in the synthesis [39]) if the data are directly comparable; (2) refutational translation (which explains and explores inconsistencies, exceptions, and incongruities in the data between studies [40]) if the data are in opposition; and (3) an integrating approach that makes sense of the parts—a “line of argument” synthesis that uses both similarities and differences across the studies. Our assessment of the included studies showed consistent themes in terms of the adverse events reported in mood monitoring and ambulatory assessment protocols. Therefore, we used the “line of argument” approach to make sense of apparent contradictions in the data before integrating the emergent concepts into a framework of reported adverse events.


    Overview

    The search identified 23,515 papers, of which 1119 (4.76%) were duplicates and removed. There were no studies reported in languages other than English that met the inclusion criteria. After title and abstract screening, 21,638 (96.61%) of the 22,396 papers were excluded, resulting in a total of 758 (3.5%) papers being reviewed in full. Of these 758 papers, 77 (10.2%) met the eligibility criteria. Of these 77 papers, 33 (43%) reported adverse events, usability issues, or feasibility issues and were included in the analyses. The PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram showing the number of studies identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the final analysis.

    The 77 included studies included 16,165 participants, and the 33 studies with usable data included 4949 participants. Tables S1 and S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 present detailed characteristics of the studies and the mood monitoring protocols used, Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 reports risk-of-bias assessments, and Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1 reports adverse event data. Tables 1-3 present facilitators, barriers, and suggested improvements, respectively, for mood monitoring protocols.

    Table 1. Facilitators in the included studies (n=24).
    FacilitatorsStudies reporting, n (%)Condition (bipolar disorder or depression)Studies reporting
    It is helpful9 (38)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]; Hidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]; van den Heuvel et al [44]; de Angel et al [45]; Van der Watt et al [46] ; Osgood-Hynes et al [47]; Sharp et al [48]; Pahwa et al [49]
    Ease of use10 (42)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]; Hidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]; Bowden et al [50]; van den Heuvel et al [44]; Drake et al [51]; Janevic et al [52]; Matcham et al [53]; Faurholt-Jepsen et al [54]; Pahwa et al [49]
    Aided medication adherence2 (8)DepressionJanevic et al [52]; Van der Watt et al [46]
    Improved insight2 (8)DepressionJanevic et al [52]; Van der Watt et al [46]
    Sharing with friends and family1 (4)DepressionDrake et al [51]
    Sharing with clinician1 (4)Bipolar disordervan den Heuvel et al [44]
    Variety of questions1 (4)DepressionBonilla-Escribano et al [55]
    Smartphone was provided1 (4)Bipolar disorderFaurholt-Jepsen et al [54]
    Table 2. Barriers in the included studies (n=24).
    BarriersStudies reporting, n (%)Condition (bipolar disorder or depression)Studies reporting
    Technical issues9 (38)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]; Hidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; van den Heuvel et al [44]; Janevic et al [52]; Matcham et al [53]; Meyerhoff et al [56]; Faurholt-Jepsen et al [57]; Lauder et al [58]; Goulding et al [59]
    Time consuming9 (38)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]; van den Heuvel et al [44]; de Angel et al [45]; Drake et al [51]; Faurholt-Jepsen et al [54]; Lauder et al [58]; Goulding et al [59]; Bowden et al [50]
    Repetitive4 (17)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]; de Angel et al [45]; Janevic et al [52]
    Intervention not useful6 (25)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]; Hidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]; Drake et al [51]; Van der Watt et al [46]; Matcham et al [53]
    Unwelcome reminder of mental illness2 (8)Bipolar disorderHidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]
    Difficult to use3 (12)Bipolar disorder and depressionGarcia-Estela et al [43]; Bowden et al [50]; Van den Heuvel et al [44]
    Worsening of mood or anxiety7 (29)Bipolar disorder and depressionDrake et al [51]; Meyerhoff et al [56]; Bilderbeck et al [60]; Lauder et al [58]; White et al [61]; Tønning et al [62]; de Angel et al [45]
    Burden of mood monitoring5 (21)Bipolar disorder and depressionvan den Heuvel et al [44]; Matcham et al [53]; Helmich et al [63]; Janevic et al [52]; Smit et al [64]
    Concern about stigma1 (4)Bipolar disorderGarcia-Estela et al [43]
    Privacy concerns5 (21)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]; Helmich et al [63]; Matcham et al [53]; Meyerhoff et al [56]
    Sharing with friends and family1 (4)DepressionDrake et al [51]
    Wearables inconvenient2 (8)Depressionde Angel et al [45]; White et al [61]
    Table 3. Suggested improvements and features in the included studies (n=24).
    Suggested improvements and featuresStudies reporting, n (%)Condition (bipolar disorder or depression)Studies reporting
    Personalization3 (12)Bipolar disorder and depressionHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]; Hidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]
    More human contact1 (4)DepressionJanevic et al [52]
    Viewing mood trends over time1 (4)Bipolar disorderHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]
    Medication reminders1 (4)Bipolar disorderHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]
    Sharing with friends and family1 (4)Bipolar disorderHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]
    Gamification1 (4)Bipolar disorderHidalgo-Mazzei et al [41]
    Psychoeducation2 (8)Bipolar disorderHidalgo-Mazzei et al [42]; Garcia-Estela et al [43]
    Notifications to complete assessments1 (4)Bipolar disorderBowden et al [50]
    Additional monitoring (other than mood)1 (4)Bipolar disordervan den Heuvel et al [44]
    Choosing when to complete assessment2 (8)Bipolar disorder and depressionBowden et al [50]; Drake et al [51]
    Easy-to-understand data1 (4)Bipolar disorderBowden et al [50]
    Sharing with clinicians1 (4)Bipolar disordervan den Heuvel et al [44]

    The 77 included studies used 54 different mood monitoring protocols, and these are reported in Tables S1 and S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1. Follow-up periods varied from 3 months [65] to 3 years [66]. All studies included participants with depression and BD; however, 3 (4%) of the 77 studies also included a mixed sample (individuals with other diagnoses were included) [55,67,68] (Tables S1 and S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1). All studies used adult samples, apart from the study by Webb et al [69], which used a sample of adolescents.

    Of the 77 studies, 15 (19%) reported adverse events, and 20 (26%) reported acceptability or usability issues (Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1). In some situations, usability issues or barriers to use and adverse events overlapped (eg, worsening of mood and burden of mood monitoring). Only 3 (4%) of the 77 studies used validated outcome assessments to measure adverse events [70-72]. The studies that reported adverse events (15/77, 19%) [44,51,53,55,57,59,60,62-64,71,73-76] did so via attrition numbers, which do not capture the number of people who experienced adverse events but remained in the study. Of the 77 studies, 13 (17%) [54,57,60,62,63,68,72,77-81] explicitly reported whether a deterioration in mood had occurred.

    Only 2 (3%) of the 77 studies [61,82] explicitly reported an absence of adverse events. A total of 25 adverse events that varied from mild to severe were reported in the included studies (15/77, 19%). These were classified according to relatedness to the mood monitoring protocol (Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1), and those that were possibly related and included 3 or more studies were meta-analyzed. The studies by Smit et al [64] (which reported worsening of mood in the context of antidepressant discontinuation) and Helmich et al [63] (which reported negative psychological symptoms in the context of receiving psychological therapy) were excluded from the meta-analysis due to these confounding factors in the relatedness of the adverse events and the ambulatory assessment. Furthermore, studies reporting relapse were not meta-analyzed because the rates for relapse (40%‐60%) were considered too high to be related to the mood monitoring.

    Of the 77 studies, 15 (19%) reported severe adverse effects, some of which were thought to be possibly related to the intervention (Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1). Of the 77 studies, 15 (19%) reported hospitalization [42-44,54,55,57,59,60,62,70,80,81,83-85]. Some of the studies measured hospitalization but did not report this as an adverse event; in many studies of BD, relapse and hospitalization are seen as an unfortunate part of the disease process. Of the 77 studies, 3 (4%) [44,55,60] reported hospitalization as an adverse event, and these were included in the meta-analysis because they were deemed to be possibly related to mood monitoring.

    Meta-Analysis

    Total Prevalence of Adverse Events

    Pooled prevalence of adverse events was 0.042 (95% CI 0.028-0.056; P<.001; Figures 2 and 3). Heterogeneity was high (Cochran Q18=91.00; P<.001; I2=80.2%), demonstrating large between-study variability. Because of the pronounced heterogeneity, we used a random effects model to pool the data. The funnel plot for the total prevalence of adverse events demonstrated visual asymmetry, suggesting possible publication bias and small study effects in the meta-analytic estimate (Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1). The Egger test demonstrated that there were small study effects (Figure S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1), suggesting possible publication bias.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Forest plot of prevalence of adverse events with percentage weighting [44,47,51,53,55,59,60,62,70,71,74,76,80].
    ‎
    Figure 3. Forest plot of prevalence of adverse events stratified by type of adverse event (negative psychological symptoms: too burdensome or stressful; negative psychological symptoms: subjective worsening of mood; self-harm; and hospitalization) [44,47,51,53-55,59,60,62,70,71,74,76].
    Prevalence of Negative Psychological Symptoms: Too Burdensome or Stressful

    Pooled prevalence of negative psychological symptoms: too burdensome or stressful was 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.07; P<.001). Heterogeneity was high (Cochran Q7=26.31; P<.001; I2= 73.4%), suggesting low-quality evidence that the prevalence of these negative psychological symptoms was related to mood monitoring.

    We compared the difference in negative psychological symptoms: too burdensome or stressful in RCTs with an appropriate non–mood monitoring control group (Figure 4), which included 3 studies [57,59,62]. The pooled odds ratio was 3.38 (95% CI 0.61-18.80). Heterogeneity was moderate (τ²=1.19; χ22=4.2; P=.13; I²=52%). There was no statistically significant difference between burdensome or stressful adverse events in mood monitoring controls and non–mood monitoring controls, but our analyses were limited by the paucity of data (P=.16).

    ‎
    Figure 4. Forest plot of odds ratios of negative psychological symptoms: too burdensome or stressful adverse events in randomized controlled trials comparing mood monitoring experimental arms versus non–mood monitoring control arms [54,59,62].
    Prevalence of Negative Psychological Symptoms: Subjective Worsening of Mood

    Pooled prevalence of negative psychological symptoms: subjective worsening of mood was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.02; P=.001). Heterogeneity was very low (Cochran Q3=1.77; P=.62; I2= 0%), providing moderate evidence of a worsening of mood related to mood monitoring in 2% of the participants; however, as these data were from only 4 (5%) of the 77 nonrandomized studies reporting a rare outcome, the evidence is not robust enough.

    Prevalence of Self-Harm

    Pooled prevalence of self-harm was 0.05 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.10; P<.001). Heterogeneity was very high (Cochran Q3=42.86; P<.001; I2=93%), again suggesting low-quality evidence that the prevalence of self-harm was related to mood monitoring.

    Prevalence of Hospitalization

    Pooled prevalence of hospitalization was 0.06 (95% CI 0.04-0.09; P=.26). Heterogeneity was low (Cochran Q2=2.70; P=.26; I2=26.1%). Despite this nonsignificant relationship between mood monitoring and the risk of hospitalization, this remains a serious adverse event, and there should be improved monitoring of hospitalization that might be associated with mood monitoring.


    This systematic review assessed adverse events and examined acceptability and usability issues in mood monitoring and ambulatory assessment protocols. We investigated facilitators and barriers, as well as adverse effects, associated with mood monitoring among both people with depression and those with BD. Overall, the reporting of adverse events (15/77, 19%) and usability issues (20/77, 26%) was very poor, and we were unable to infer the causality of these adverse events. Furthermore, due to the severe underreporting of adverse events as well as heterogeneity and publication bias in the included studies, there was limited certainty in the prevalence, duration, and severity of these adverse events. The most frequent facilitators of mood monitoring were perceiving mood monitoring as helpful (9/24, 38%) and ease of use (10/24, 42%). The most common barriers to mood monitoring were that it was time consuming or that there were technical issues with the mood monitoring app (9/24, 38%). There were a range of suggestions for improvements, with the most common being a request for personalization of the app to the user’s needs for mood monitoring. In terms of adverse events, evidence that approximately 2% (1/77) of people with depression or BD experience a lowering of mood with mood monitoring was the most robust. Evidence that mood monitoring might be burdensome to patients or lead to self-harm was of very low quality. There was no significant association between mood monitoring and hospitalization.

    While many users found mood monitoring protocols to be therapeutic, our findings also demonstrate that a small number of users in these studies reported negative psychological effects. It is unclear whether this highlights a potential area for improvement or whether the relationship is noncausal. Our quantitative findings are in keeping with other reviews of adverse events in smartphone app interventions; for example, Linardon et al [9] found a deterioration rate of 6%. In our review, only a minority of the studies (17/77, 22%) explicitly reported adverse events, and only 12 (16%) of the 77 studies explicitly reported whether a deterioration in mood had occurred. Any adverse findings are important because mood monitoring measures are more commonly used in longitudinal studies. Negative experiences could obfuscate any positive effects if mood monitoring is used as an assessment measure in interventional studies.

    While we cannot demonstrate here that mood monitoring causes a worsening of mood, this study identifies some plausible ways in which mood monitoring could potentially worsen mood or anxiety and potentially increase subjective stress. These include mood monitoring serving as an unwelcome reminder of mental illness, the burden of mood monitoring, the intervention being time consuming and repetitive, and technical problems that may frustrate users. Although these mechanisms remain speculative, other research suggests that rumination, perceived helplessness, and intrusive reminders may contribute to mood deterioration [6]. It was unclear whether these feelings of worsening mood were experienced by everyone or by only certain individuals, and not all studies reported negative psychological effects. However, some concerns were reported by participants in the majority of the studies (10/15, 67%; eg, increases in subjective stress). These adverse effects must be considered carefully when determining who may or may not benefit from these interventions moving forward. It may be necessary to incorporate additional therapeutic elements into the app to offset the negative effects or offer additional support to users.

    By reviewing acceptability and usability issues of mood monitoring and ambulatory assessment protocols, we demonstrate the great potential to improve existing protocols to maximize acceptability, engagement, adherence, user experience, usability, and safety. The data on suggested improvements were limited, with only 7 (9%) of the 77 studies reporting data, and included personalization (3/7, 43%) and additional human contact (2/7, 29%). Other research that has explored this in more detail concluded that users place high emphasis on personalization and customization and continue to greatly value human contact with their clinician—the tool is an aid to this contact, not a replacement for it [6]. Other research has suggested that personalization should be a core feature of any future protocol development to maximize successful implementation and uptake [6]. Qualitative research demonstrates that users desire an intuitive and easy-to-use passive data protocol that builds on their existing strengths, with high emphasis on personalization and customizability [6]. Such tools may allow users to self-manage their mood disorder in their own way while retaining control over their data. Reported types of personalization include data collection, data sharing, feedback provided, and methods of interaction with the protocol (eg, notifications or wearables) [6].

    In terms of the limitations of the review, only a small proportion of studies provided data, and there was evidence of publication bias in reporting as well as high heterogeneity in some of the outcomes. Many studies were nonrandomized or observational with small sample sizes or few observation weeks. As some adverse events were rare, attribution to mood monitoring rather than another factor, such as concurrent treatment or natural history of the condition, requires caution, especially in relation to any inference of causality or precision in estimates of incidence. The review combined multiple heterogeneous studies, and while this is a common limitation of many systematic reviews, the heterogeneity in some analyses was substantial, decreasing certainty in the result of the analyses. We could not ascertain the causes of heterogeneity, but it may be due to the wide range of mood monitoring and assessment protocols used across the included studies. Given the limited number of high-quality RCTs comparing mood monitoring with appropriate controls, causal inferences could not be drawn. Moreover, as is typical when assessing adverse events, issues of attribution and relatedness limit causal interpretation [32].

    The level of detail provided in these studies was limited, and it was difficult to establish whether the adverse effect was related to the intervention itself. Furthermore, many studies included a variety of features beyond mood monitoring, which made it challenging to isolate the specific negative effects of mood monitoring. There were limited data on the contextual factors that might influence participants’ experiences of mood monitoring in depression. These factors include differences between digital and nondigital formats; wearable and nonwearable devices; active and passive data collection; EMA and non-EMA designs; interventions with therapeutic elements and those without; and human-, avatar-, and digitally supported interventions. Participant-related factors such as country income level, age, depression severity, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and disability were also underrepresented [6]. Nonetheless, this review focuses on actual intended use based on empirical data, often over prolonged periods of time, rather than focusing on hypothetical use derived from focus groups.

    However, there are grounds to think that harm, safety, and usability are not given the priority expected for devices used in people with serious mental illness and that published reports should systematically report adverse events and usability to ensure that both these issues can be monitored and addressed. Future protocols should measure potential mood deterioration objectively to enable these quantitative data to be triangulated with qualitative data, allowing any potential causality to be inferred or refuted. Low rates of reporting negative effects are common across digital interventions and may be hindering the development of safer interventions [9]. It may be possible for major funders (eg, Wellcome Trust and UK Research and Innovation) and regulatory bodies to introduce the requirement for grant holders and developers of technology to use responsible innovation networks that explicitly ask research teams to consider negative adverse effects and their measurement, mitigation, and reporting (eg, internationally recognized standards such as Good Clinical Practice [86]). The data in this review show that previous studies have not considered these issues adequately.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Fellowship to LAW. The authors would like to thank the University of Nottingham Library Service for assistance with formulating the search terms. RM was chief investigator on a grant from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands Mental Health and Well-Being Theme and an investigator on the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse–Central Nervous System study. RM has received other NIHR funding for research on interventions for depression and bipolar disorder as an NIHR Senior Investigator and is the lead for the Nottingham NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Mental Health and Technology Theme and the NIHR Mental Health HealthTech Research Centre Adult Mental Health Theme.

    Authors' Contributions

    LAW and RM were responsible for the original study design. LAW was responsible for the search and identification of relevant papers, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessments. JM-C was responsible for data extraction. LAW, RM, JM-C, and BG were responsible for subsequent interpretation, editing, and rewriting of the report.

    Conflicts of Interest

    RM has received funding from Novartis to serve on a data management and ethics committee for two trials on the treatment of depression. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Supplementary figures, tables, and materials.

    DOCX File, 303 KB
    Checklist 1

    PRISMA checklist.

    DOCX File, 31 KB
    1. Trull TJ, Ebner-Priemer U. Ambulatory assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9(1):151-176. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. aan het Rot M, Hogenelst K, Schoevers RA. Mood disorders in everyday life: a systematic review of experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment studies. Clin Psychol Rev. Aug 2012;32(6):510-523. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Matcham F, Barattieri di San Pietro C, Bulgari V, et al. Remote assessment of disease and relapse in major depressive disorder (RADAR-MDD): a multi-centre prospective cohort study protocol. BMC Psychiatry. Feb 18, 2019;19(1):72. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Linardon J, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. Attrition and adherence in smartphone-delivered interventions for mental health problems: a systematic and meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. Jan 2020;88(1):1-13. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Maugeri A, Barchitta M. A systematic review of ecological momentary assessment of diet: implications and perspectives for nutritional epidemiology. Nutrients. Nov 7, 2019;11(11):2696. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Wright LA, Majid M, Moore M, et al. The user experience of ecological momentary assessment and mood monitoring in bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Preprint posted online on Jun 20, 2024. URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/71525/accepted [Accessed 2025-10-17]
    7. van Genugten CR, Schuurmans J, Lamers F, et al. Experienced burden of and adherence to smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment in persons with affective disorders. J Clin Med. Jan 23, 2020;9(2):322. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Gromatsky M, Sullivan SR, Spears AP, et al. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of mental health outcomes in veterans and servicemembers: a scoping review. Psychiatry Res. Oct 2020;292:113359. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Linardon J, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Firth J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in clinical trials of mental health apps. NPJ Digit Med. Dec 18, 2024;7(1):363. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Papaioannou D, Cooper C, Mooney C, Glover R, Coates E. Adverse event recording failed to reflect potential harms: a review of trial protocols of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. Aug 2021;136:64-76. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Linden M, Schermuly-Haupt ML. Definition, assessment and rate of psychotherapy side effects. World Psychiatry. Oct 2014;13(3):306-309. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Gómez Bergin AD, Valentine AZ, Rennick-Egglestone S, Slade M, Hollis C, Hall CL. Identifying and categorizing adverse events in trials of digital mental health interventions: narrative scoping review of trials in the international standard randomized controlled trial number registry. JMIR Ment Health. Feb 22, 2023;10:e42501. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Faurholt-Jepsen M, Munkholm K, Frost M, Bardram JE, Kessing LV. Electronic self-monitoring of mood using IT platforms in adult patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review of the validity and evidence. BMC Psychiatry. Jan 15, 2016;16:7. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Dubad M, Winsper C, Meyer C, Livanou M, Marwaha S. A systematic review of the psychometric properties, usability and clinical impacts of mobile mood-monitoring applications in young people. Psychol Med. Jan 2018;48(2):208-228. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Wrzus C, Neubauer AB. Ecological momentary assessment: a meta-analysis on designs, samples, and compliance across research fields. Assessment. Apr 2023;30(3):825-846. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. Jul 1, 1995;311(6996):42-45. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Saunders KE, Bilderbeck AC, Panchal P, Atkinson LZ, Geddes JR, Goodwin GM. Experiences of remote mood and activity monitoring in bipolar disorder: a qualitative study. Eur Psychiatry. Mar 2017;41:115-121. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Anmella G, Faurholt-Jepsen M, Hidalgo-Mazzei D, et al. Smartphone-based interventions in bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analyses of efficacy. A position paper from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) big data task force. Bipolar Disord. Sep 2022;24(6):580-614. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Glenn CR, Kleiman EM, Kearns JC, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of ecological momentary assessment with high-risk suicidal adolescents following acute psychiatric care. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2022;51(1):32-48. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Morton E, Hole R, Murray G, Buzwell S, Michalak E. Experiences of a web-based quality of life self-monitoring tool for individuals with bipolar disorder: a qualitative exploration. JMIR Ment Health. Dec 4, 2019;6(12):e16121. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Mood-tracking and self-monitoring in bipolar disorder and depression. PROSPERO. 2023. URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023396473 [Accessed 2025-10-17]
    22. Bipolar disorder (update) – review protocols. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2021. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg185/documents/bipolar-disorder-update-review-questions2 [Accessed 2025-10-17]
    23. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. Dec 5, 2016;5(1):210. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Antosik-Wójcińska AZ, Dominiak M, Chojnacka M, et al. Smartphone as a monitoring tool for bipolar disorder: a systematic review including data analysis, machine learning algorithms and predictive modelling. Int J Med Inform. Jun 2020;138:104131. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Palmier-Claus J, Lobban F, Mansell W, et al. Mood monitoring in bipolar disorder: is it always helpful? Bipolar Disord. Jun 2021;23(4):429-431. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. van der Watt ASJ, Odendaal W, Louw K, Seedat S. Distant mood monitoring for depressive and bipolar disorders: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. Jul 22, 2020;20(1):383. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Ortiz A, Maslej MM, Husain MI, Daskalakis ZJ, Mulsant BH. Apps and gaps in bipolar disorder: a systematic review on electronic monitoring for episode prediction. J Affect Disord. Dec 1, 2021;295:1190-1200. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Malhi GS, Hamilton A, Morris G, Mannie Z, Das P, Outhred T. The promise of digital mood tracking technologies: are we heading on the right track? Evid Based Mental Health. Nov 2017;20(4):102-107. [CrossRef]
    29. Faurholt-Jepsen M, Geddes JR, Goodwin GM, et al. Reporting guidelines on remotely collected electronic mood data in mood disorder (eMOOD)-recommendations. Transl Psychiatry. Jun 7, 2019;9(1):162. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Wenze SJ, Miller IW. Use of ecological momentary assessment in mood disorders research. Clin Psychol Rev. Aug 2010;30(6):794-804. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Koenders MA, Nolen WA, Giltay EJ, Hoencamp E, Spijker AT. The use of the prospective NIMH Life Chart Method as a bipolar mood assessment method in research: a systematic review of different methods, outcome measures and interpretations. J Affect Disord. Apr 1, 2015;175:260-268. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Phillips R, Hazell L, Sauzet O, Cornelius V. Analysis and reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials: a review. BMJ Open. Mar 1, 2019;9(2):e024537. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. Oct 18, 2011;343:d5928. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. Oct 12, 2016;355:i4919. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Knowles SE, Toms G, Sanders C, et al. Qualitative meta-synthesis of user experience of computerised therapy for depression and anxiety. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e84323. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. Apr 16, 2008;8:21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Castleberry A. NVivo 10 [software program]. Version 10. QSR international; 2012. Am J Pharm Educ. Feb 2014;78(1):25. [CrossRef]
    38. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage Publications; 1988. [CrossRef] ISBN: 9781412985000
    39. Melendez-Torres GJ, Grant S, Bonell C. A systematic review and critical appraisal of qualitative metasynthetic practice in public health to develop a taxonomy of operations of reciprocal translation. Res Synth Methods. Dec 2015;6(4):357-371. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Sattar R, Lawton R, Panagioti M, Johnson J. Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: a guide to using a meta-ethnographic approach for literature synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. Jan 8, 2021;21(1):50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Hidalgo-Mazzei D, Mateu A, Reinares M, et al. Psychoeducation in bipolar disorder with a SIMPLe smartphone application: Feasibility, acceptability and satisfaction. J Affect Disord. Aug 2016;200:58-66. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Hidalgo-Mazzei D, Reinares M, Mateu A, et al. OpenSIMPLe: a real-world implementation feasibility study of a smartphone-based psychoeducation programme for bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. Dec 1, 2018;241:436-445. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. García-Estela A, Cantillo J, Angarita-Osorio N, et al. Real-world implementation of a smartphone-based psychoeducation program for bipolar disorder: observational ecological study. J Med Internet Res. Feb 2, 2022;24(2):e31565. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. van den Heuvel S, Meije D, Regeer EJ, Sinnema H, Riemersma RF, Kupka RW. The user experiences and clinical outcomes of an online personal health record to support self-management of bipolar disorder: a pretest-posttest pilot study. J Affect Disord. Oct 1, 2018;238:261-268. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. de Angel V, Adeleye F, Zhang Y, et al. The feasibility of implementing remote measurement technologies in psychological treatment for depression: mixed methods study on engagement. JMIR Ment Health. Jan 24, 2023;10:e42866. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Van der Watt ASJ, Dalvie N, Seedat S. Weekly telephone mood monitoring is associated with decreased suicidality and improved sleep quality in a clinical sample. Psychiatry Res. Nov 2022;317:114821. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Osgood-Hynes DJ, Greist JH, Marks IM, et al. Self-administered psychotherapy for depression using a telephone-accessed computer system plus booklets: an open U.S.-U.K. study. J Clin Psychiatry. Jul 1998;59(7):358-365. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Sharp KJ, South CC, Chin Fatt C, Trivedi MH, Rethorst CD. Pilot studies to evaluate feasibility of a physical activity intervention for persons with depression. J Sport Exerc Psychol. Dec 1, 2020;42(6):443-451. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Pahwa M, McElroy SL, Priesmeyer R, et al. KIOS: A smartphone app for self-monitoring for patients with bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. Feb 2024;26(1):84-92. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/13995618/26/1 [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Bowden CL, Priesmeyer R, Tohen M, et al. Development of a patient-centered software system to facilitate effective management of bipolar disorder. Psychopharmacol Bull. Mar 16, 2021;51(2):8-19. [Medline]
    51. Drake G, Csipke E, Wykes T. Assessing your mood online: acceptability and use of Moodscope. Psychol Med. Jul 2013;43(7):1455-1464. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Janevic MR, Aruquipa Yujra AC, Marinec N, et al. Feasibility of an interactive voice response system for monitoring depressive symptoms in a lower-middle income Latin American country. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2016;10(1):59. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Matcham F, Leightley D, Siddi S, et al. Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Major Depressive Disorder (RADAR-MDD): recruitment, retention, and data availability in a longitudinal remote measurement study. BMC Psychiatry. Feb 21, 2022;22(1):136. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Faurholt-Jepsen M, Frost M, Ritz C, et al. Daily electronic self-monitoring in bipolar disorder using smartphones - the MONARCA I trial: a randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind, parallel group trial. Psychol Med. Oct 2015;45(13):2691-2704. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Bonilla-Escribano P, Ramírez D, Baca-García E, Courtet P, Artés-Rodríguez A, López-Castromán J. Multidimensional variability in ecological assessments predicts two clusters of suicidal patients. Sci Rep. Mar 2, 2023;13(1):3546. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Meyerhoff J, Liu T, Kording KP, et al. Evaluation of changes in depression, anxiety, and social anxiety using smartphone sensor features: longitudinal cohort study. J Med Internet Res. Sep 3, 2021;23(9):e22844. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Faurholt-Jepsen M, Frost M, Christensen EM, Bardram JE, Vinberg M, Kessing LV. The effect of smartphone-based monitoring on illness activity in bipolar disorder: the MONARCA II randomized controlled single-blinded trial. Psychol Med. Apr 2020;50(5):838-848. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Lauder S, Chester A, Castle D, et al. A randomized head to head trial of MoodSwings.net.au: an internet based self-help program for bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. Jan 15, 2015;171:13-21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Goulding EH, Dopke CA, Rossom R, Jonathan G, Mohr D, Kwasny MJ. Effects of a smartphone-based self-management intervention for individuals with bipolar disorder on relapse, symptom burden, and quality of life: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. Feb 1, 2023;80(2):109-118. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Bilderbeck AC, Atkinson LZ, McMahon HC, et al. Psychoeducation and online mood tracking for patients with bipolar disorder: a randomised controlled trial. J Affect Disord. Nov 15, 2016;205:245-251. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. White KM, Carr E, Leightley D, et al. Engagement with a remote symptom-tracking platform among participants with major depressive disorder: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jan 19, 2024;12:e44214. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Tønning ML, Faurholt-Jepsen M, Frost M, et al. The effect of smartphone-based monitoring and treatment on the rate and duration of psychiatric readmission in patients with unipolar depressive disorder: the RADMIS randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord. Mar 1, 2021;282:354-363. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Helmich MA, Smit AC, Bringmann LF, et al. Detecting impending symptom transitions using early-warning signals in individuals receiving treatment for depression. Clin Psychol Sci. Nov 2023;11(6):994-1010. [CrossRef]
    64. Smit AC, Snippe E, Bringmann LF, Hoenders HJR, Wichers M. Transitions in depression: if, how, and when depressive symptoms return during and after discontinuing antidepressants. Qual Life Res. May 2023;32(5):1295-1306. [CrossRef]
    65. Lieberman DZ, Kelly TF, Douglas L, Goodwin FK. A randomized comparison of online and paper mood charts for people with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. Jul 2010;124(1-2):85-89. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Denicoff KD, Ali SO, Sollinger AB, Smith-Jackson EE, Leverich GS, Post RM. Utility of the daily prospective National Institute of Mental Health Life-Chart Method (NIMH-LCM-p) ratings in clinical trials of bipolar disorder. Depress Anxiety. 2002;15(1):1-9. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Emden D, Goltermann J, Dannlowski U, Hahn T, Opel N. Technical feasibility and adherence of the Remote Monitoring Application in Psychiatry (ReMAP) for the assessment of affective symptoms. J Affect Disord. Nov 1, 2021;294:652-660. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Benedyk A, Moldavski A, Reichert M, et al. Initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic on real-life well-being, social contact and roaming behavior in patients with schizophrenia, major depression and healthy controls: a longitudinal ecological momentary assessment study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. Apr 2023;69:79-83. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Webb CA, Swords CM, Lawrence HR, Hilt LM. Which adolescents are well-suited to app-based mindfulness training? A randomized clinical trial and data-driven approach for personalized recommendations. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2022;90(9):655-669. [CrossRef]
    70. Gliddon E, Cosgrove V, Berk L, et al. A randomized controlled trial of MoodSwings 2.0: an internet-based self-management program for bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. Feb 2019;21(1):28-39. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Langosch JM, Drieling T, Biedermann NC, et al. Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in rapid-cycling bipolar disorder in comparison with sodium valproate. J Clin Psychopharmacol. Oct 2008;28(5):555-560. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Klein JP, Berger T, Schröder J, et al. Effects of a psychological internet intervention in the treatment of mild to moderate depressive symptoms: results of the EVIDENT study, a randomized controlled trial. Psychother Psychosom. 2016;85(4):218-228. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Schneider J, Bakštein E, Kolenič M, et al. Motor activity patterns can distinguish between interepisode bipolar disorder patients and healthy controls. CNS Spectr. Feb 2022;27(1):82-92. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Webb CA, Murray L, Tierney AO, Forbes EE, Pizzagalli DA. Reward-related predictors of symptom change in behavioral activation therapy for anhedonic adolescents: a multimodal approach. Neuropsychopharmacology. Mar 2023;48(4):623-632. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Castle D, White C, Chamberlain J, et al. Group-based psychosocial intervention for bipolar disorder: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. May 2010;196(5):383-388. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Petzold J, Mayer-Pelinski R, Pilhatsch M, et al. Short group psychoeducation followed by daily electronic self-monitoring in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorders: a multicenter, rater-blind, randomized controlled trial. Int J Bipolar Disord. Nov 4, 2019;7(1):23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Anýž J, Bakštein E, Dally A, et al. Validity of the Aktibipo self-rating questionnaire for the digital self-assessment of mood and relapse detection in patients with bipolar disorder: instrument validation study. JMIR Ment Health. Aug 9, 2021;8(8):e26348. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Dominiak M, Kaczmarek-Majer K, Antosik-Wójcińska AZ, et al. Behavioral and self-reported data collected from smartphones for the assessment of depressive and manic symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder: prospective observational study. J Med Internet Res. Jan 19, 2022;24(1):e28647. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Aikens JE, Trivedi R, Heapy A, Pfeiffer PN, Piette JD. Potential impact of incorporating a patient-selected support person into mHealth for depression. J Gen Intern Med. Jun 2015;30(6):797-803. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Faurholt-Jepsen M, Lindbjerg Tønning M, Fros M, et al. Reducing the rate of psychiatric re-admissions in bipolar disorder using smartphones-the RADMIS trial. Acta Psychiatr Scand. May 2021;143(5):453-465. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Goldberg JF, Bowden CL, Calabrese JR, et al. Six-month prospective life charting of mood symptoms with lamotrigine monotherapy versus placebo in rapid cycling bipolar disorder. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. Jan 2008;63(1):125-130. [CrossRef]
    82. Aguilera A, Bruehlman-Senecal E, Demasi O, Avila P. Automated text messaging as an adjunct to cognitive behavioral therapy for depression: a clinical trial. J Med Internet Res. May 8, 2017;19(5):e148. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Kupka RW, Luckenbaugh DA, Post RM, et al. Comparison of rapid-cycling and non-rapid-cycling bipolar disorder based on prospective mood ratings in 539 outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. Jul 2005;162(7):1273-1280. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Schärer LO, Krienke UJ, Graf SM, Meltzer K, Langosch JM. Validation of life-charts documented with the personal life-chart app - a self-monitoring tool for bipolar disorder. BMC Psychiatry. Mar 14, 2015;15:49. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Hunkeler EM, Hargreaves WA, Fireman B, et al. A web-delivered care management and patient self-management program for recurrent depression: a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv. Nov 2012;63(11):1063-1071. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Idänpään-Heikkilä JE. WHO guidelines for good clinical practice (GCP) for trials on pharmaceutical products: responsibilities of the investigator. Ann Med. Apr 1994;26(2):89-94. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    BD: bipolar disorder
    EMA: ecological momentary assessment
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    RCT: randomized controlled trial
    RoB 2: Cochrane risk-of-bias tool
    ROBINS-I: Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool

    Edited by John Torous; submitted 23.Jun.2025; peer-reviewed by Andrew Peckham, Femke Lamers; final revised version received 08.Sep.2025; accepted 01.Oct.2025; published 23.Oct.2025.

    Copyright

    © Laurence Astill Wright, Jonathan Monk-Cunliffe, Boliang Guo, Richard Morriss. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 23.Oct.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mental.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.