Thousands of Apps, No Shared Standard: How Digital Mental Health Earns Its Way Into Care

Thousands of Apps, No Shared Standard: How Digital Mental Health Earns Its Way Into Care 

For those navigating a rapidly growing digital mental health market, determining which technologies they can trust is becoming increasingly complex. Products are described as evidence-based, clinically informed, psychologist-designed, AI-powered, and built to improve outcomes. These claims have become commonplace across the industry—and for good reason. Clinicians, health systems, employers, and consumers increasingly expect digital mental health technologies to demonstrate credibility and  trust alongside innovation. 

The challenge is that these claims lack consistency. One company’s definition of “clinically informed” may be substantially different from another’s, and without a standardized way to evaluate them, decision makers are left to interpret those differences on their own. As digital mental health continues to mature, decision makers are no longer comparing products based solely on features or functionality. They are seeking greater confidence in the evidence, safeguards, and expertise behind a product before deciding whether it belongs in their organization.  

When Every Product Sounds Credible 

For founders, strong positioning still matters. In a crowded market, it may be what earns the first look. But as a company moves closer to a clinical partnership, enterprise sale or investment conversation, positioning alone cannot answer the questions decision makers need resolved. 

 What’s more, different stakeholders examine different parts of the decision. Clinical leaders examine safety and scientific principles. Procurement teams look at cost, integration, interoperability, and implementation. Privacy and security leaders review governance. Implementation teams assess operational readiness. Investors look for signals that a product can scale responsibly. 

  
And above all, founders must answer a fundamental question: How can you demonstrate that your product is worthy of trust?

Expert Network Perspective 

“What changes have you seen in how clinicians and healthcare organizations evaluate

digital mental health technologies today compared to five years ago?” 

From my vantage point, over the past five years, clinicians and healthcare organizations have become more aware of digital mental health technologies but remain slow to adopt and understand their role. The introduction of AI into mental health technologies has alerted clinicians to these tools, but it has also alarmed many of them. At the recent APA annual convention, the worries I heard were primarily about chatbots forming relationships with individuals or serving as therapists, and that concern came up throughout the meeting.  

Apart from AI, some clinicians are using mental health apps that support relaxation and mindfulness and have heard about VR tools that can be effective for exposure therapy. Beyond that, most remain skeptical or simply unaware of what is available. That skepticism is not driven by a fear that these technologies will replace them. It comes from waiting for evidence that they actually work. From my perspective, it is important for clinicians and healthcare organizations to first view mental health technologies as an adjunct to their treatment, another tool in their toolbox, and I think that framing may help with their willingness to embrace them. -   Dr. Randy Kulman, clinical psychologist, founder of LearningWorks for Kids, and creator of DigitallyNutritious.org  

The Five Questions Decision Makers Ask Before They Buy 

1. Scientific Principles: What evidence supports this product?
2. Regulation & Safety: How do I know this product is appropriate for the people it’s designed to serve?
3. Data & Privacy: Can users trust how their information is handled?
4. Technical Security & Stability: Will this technology perform reliably when people need it most?
5. Usability & Accessibility: Can the intended users actually use and benefit from it?

Taken together, these questions increasingly shape purchasing decisions, partnership discussions, implementation planning, and investment conversations across digital mental and behavioral health. They’re no longer reserved for regulators or researchers—they’re becoming standard questions throughout the marketplace. 

Digital Badge Founder Perspective 

“Which of these questions has become most common in customer

conversations, and how has your team responded?” 

"The question PlaySpace hears most often from customers is “How does a clinician know the platform is appropriate for the children, teens, and neurodivergent young people they serve?"

At PlaySpace, we respond that the clinician ultimately makes that decision. The platform is a clinician-led therapeutic environment, not a diagnostic or treatment tool. PlaySpace features, such as our 3D sandtray or 3D dollhouse, are initiated by the clinician, and any AI-generated material is reviewed and approved by the licensed professional before a young client sees it. Rather than assuming that there is one kind of client, PlaySpace was built to be adapted. Clinicians and children shape avatars, environments, and stories to reflect their own culture, identity, and lived experience." - Elizabeth Cawley, PhD, Playspace 

Trust Is Becoming a Growth Strategy 

Clinicians want confidence before recommending products to patients. Health systems want to understand implementation risks before integrating new technologies into care. Employers seek solutions that demonstrate meaningful value for their workforce, while investors increasingly recognize that evidence and adoption often go hand in hand. 

Founders who are prepared to answer these questions are often better positioned to navigate enterprise conversations, strengthen customer confidence, and differentiate themselves in a competitive market. 

Why Psychology Changes the Conversation 

Digital mental health technologies are fundamentally designed to influence people—not simply automate processes or improve efficiency. 

That makes the human experience and impact of the technology part of the evaluation—not separate from it. Evidence, safety, privacy, security, usability, and accessibility can all have implications for whether people can engage with a product as intended and whether organizations can have confidence introducing it into care. 

Psychological science brings that human context to evaluation, helping organizations look beyond whether a technology functions to better understand how it may be experienced by the people it was designed to serve and the risks associated with it. 

Expert Network Perspective 

“What does psychological science add to the way

we evaluate digital mental health technologies?” 

Psychologists and psychological science demand rigorous evaluation of new treatments and mental health technologies. One of the questions I encounter from patients is simple: what is the evidence that they work? These technologies are still developing, and more effective tools will require ongoing evaluation, openness to new ideas, and steady improvement. 

We also need to consider generalization, whether what someone practices in an app actually carries into their real world. Through our work at Digitally Nutritious, I’ve seen how important it is to understand how technologies support healthier development in neurodivergent children. APA Labs is uniquely positioned to rigorously evaluate these technologies, not only to inform clinicians about what works but also to influence their design and application. - Dr. Kulman 

AI Reality Check 

Artificial intelligence is reshaping digital mental and behavioral health, but evaluating AI requires more than determining whether a model performs well. 

Organizations are beginning to ask different questions. How was the AI evaluated? What risks does it introduce? What evidence demonstrates that those risks have been identified and appropriately managed? 

These questions recognize that every AI-enabled product is different. 

Rather than evaluating every AI application against a universal checklist, the APA Labs AI Evaluation Framework takes a product-specific approach. It begins by examining how AI functions within a particular technology, identifies the unique risks introduced by that architecture, and evaluates whether appropriate safeguards, evidence, and oversight are in place to address those risks. 

Three Questions for Digital Mental Health Founders  to Ask  themselves 

What’s Next in the Series 

Coming Next: Not All Evidence Is Created Equal—And Decision Makers Have Learned the Difference 

If every digital mental health product claims to be “evidence-based,” how do decision makers determine what that actually means? In our next article, we’ll explore why the quality, transparency, and relevance of evidence have become competitive differentiators—and how sophisticated decision makers are learning to tell the difference.

Learn More 

Explore the APA Labs Digital Badge Program to learn how independent evaluation helps organizations strengthen their products, demonstrate evidence, and prepare for the questions that increasingly influence adoption across digital mental and behavioral health.