Frameworks for Developing Digital Mental Health Interventions

The development of digital interventions is often done without enough support and care. Existing development frameworks offer coherence and consistency in designing and testing digital interventions. This study systematically reviewed existing frameworks to identify the most comprehensive and supported for guiding the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of digital interventions, aiming to establish evidence-based best practices. A comprehensive systematic search was conducted across four of the major databases. Following the initial screening, selected articles underwent full-text analysis. Frameworks were evaluated against predefined inclusion criteria, with a focus on their applicability across various stages of intervention development. A comparative synthesis was performed to elucidate key features, strengths, and limitations. Out of 47 identified frameworks, four met the criteria: the Medical Research Council framework, the User-Centered Design approach, the Person-Based approach, and the Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share framework. A comparative analysis revealed similarities and differences between frameworks. The four frameworks emphasize iterative processes, stakeholder involvement, and contextual adaptation. Differences emerge in the emphasis placed on ethical concerns and how tailoring and monitoring are integrated into the intervention. Finally, the theoretical grounding and how theory relates to development, as well as the relative role of context, are approached differently by each framework. The proposed best practices highlight the similarities and challenges found in the frameworks. These best practices synthesize and expand the contributions of these frameworks in designing better digital interventions for mental health.