2.6.2 Scientific Integrity and Testing Claims
Concerns have been raised in the literature about the rapid and even reckless embrace of algorithmic technologies in mental health research; computer and cognitive scientist Chelsea Chandler and her colleagues have described this recent flurry of commercial and research activity as akin to the ‘wild west’.373 They describe an urgent need in the field for ‘a framework with which to evaluate the complex methodology such that the process is done honestly, fairly, scientifically, and accurately’.374 The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, in its survey of the field concluded that ‘the evidence base for digital mental health interventions, including the demonstration of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness in real-world settings, remains inadequate’375. Health Education England also surveyed algorithmic and data-driven technologies in mental health care and raised concerns about ‘spurious claims and overhyped technologies that fail to deliver for patients’.376 Perhaps most damning was a recent meta-review on mobile phone-based interventions for mental health by Simon Goldberg and colleagues, which surveyed 14 meta-analyses representing 145 randomised control trials involving 47,940 participants.377 Despite this extensive search and vast body of research, the review ‘failed to find convincing evidence in support of any mobile phone-based intervention on any outcome.378 This is not to suggest all digital technological approaches to mental health are unsupported by evidence or unworthy of further research. Instead, it is to caution against the hype and ‘techno-solutionism’ which pervades the field.