Research from experts at Rutgers Health, Harvard University, and the University of Pittsburgh highlights significant risks associated with unregulated mobile health applications designed to assist with substance use reduction. In a commentary published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the authors argue for increased oversight of these technologies to protect consumers from misleading information.
The commentary, led by Jon-Patrick Allem, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Public Health, emphasizes that many of these applications lack scientific backing. Although some controlled studies indicate that certain mobile health apps can help users reduce substance use, their real-world effectiveness remains questionable. The marketplace is often dominated by apps that prioritize advertising revenue over evidence-based practices, making it difficult for consumers to identify reliable resources.
Research reveals that a majority of substance use reduction apps do not employ proven, evidence-based methods. Instead, they frequently make exaggerated claims about their effectiveness, often using technical jargon to lend credibility. Allem calls for better regulation and transparency, suggesting that consumers deserve clearer guidelines to distinguish between apps grounded in scientific evidence and those that are not.
To identify evidence-based apps, consumers can look for several key indicators. These include citations of scientific research, development by qualified professionals or institutions, independent evaluations published in scientific journals, compliance with strict data standards, and a lack of unrealistic promises.
Currently, the app marketplace lacks robust enforcement mechanisms, leaving users vulnerable to misinformation that can hinder recovery efforts for those struggling with substance use disorders. The rapid introduction of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools into the health application space has further complicated matters. While these technologies have the potential to improve access to health information, they also increase the risk of disseminating unregulated and untested products. Allem warns that this can lead to the spread of inaccurate health information and normalization of unsafe behaviors.
Consumers are advised to exercise caution when selecting health apps. They should steer clear of those making vague claims, such as “clinically proven,” without substantiating details. Apps that employ overly simplistic methods or promise guaranteed results should also be approached with skepticism.
To enhance regulation of health apps, the commentary suggests that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval should be a prerequisite for these applications. This would require them to undergo rigorous clinical trials to meet established safety and efficacy standards before becoming publicly available. In the interim, clear labeling of apps based on their evidence support is crucial for consumer safety.
By implementing effective oversight mechanisms, including potential penalties for noncompliance, the health app marketplace could be transformed into a safer environment. The goal is to ensure that mobile health applications are not only accurate but also responsible in their claims and practices, ultimately safeguarding users’ well-being.
