記住我
Interpersonal violence is a global public health and human rights challenge, having effects at the family, community, and national levels, with impacts reverberating across generations []. Physical violence, psychological violence, verbal abuse, and sexual assault or harassment are common forms of interpersonal violence []. More specific examples are child abuse, dating violence, domestic violence, human trafficking, stalking, hazing, bullying, and older person abuse []. It is a leading cause of not only physical and psychological harm but also early mortality and is therefore a significant threat to personal safety [,]. Interpersonal violence, therefore, has considerable societal consequences, including significant economic burden due to health care provision, loss of productivity, criminal justice involvement, and antiviolence campaigns and interventions [,]. The total economic cost of violence has been estimated to be in the billions for many countries worldwide, including Canada [,], the United States [], and the United Kingdom [,].
While every age demographic experiences interpersonal violence, children and youth constitute a particularly important sector. This is because such violence, which can reoccur throughout an individual’s life, has enduring consequences, increasing one’s lifelong vulnerability to a myriad of emotional and physical health problems and negative health behaviors such as substance misuse and risky sexual behaviors [,,]. In 2020, it was estimated that 1 billion children (1 out of every 2 children worldwide) experience some form of violence each year. When aggregated across billions of people, the effects of violence against children can have detrimental effects on economic development []. It has been reported that individuals between 12 and 34 years of age are at the highest risk for sexual assault []. In a study involving 8629 participants in the United States, violent childhood experiences were reported to double the risk of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood for women and double the risk of IPV perpetration in men []. Studies such as this show that the impacts on younger populations can be more devastating, affecting individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole. It has been shown that children and youth are among the sectors of society that are at greatest risk of violence, sexual abuse, and going missing [,]. Among other factors, youth and young adults are at increased risk of victimization, as they are more likely to be single, have lower income, and engage to greater extents in nighttime activities [].
In addition to harm from older adults, children and youth are also at risk from their peers through incidents such as dating violence, sexual violence, and bullying [,,]. A Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted in 2019 among high school students in the United States revealed that 25% of students reported bullying victimization and approximately 12% reported dating violence (physical or sexual) []. Furthermore, interpersonal violence is one of the main causes of death among adolescents and young adults in most countries worldwide [].
Youth personal safety is not only impacted by interpersonal violence but also by the risk of self-harm. Mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and suicide pose significant threats to the lives and well-being of individuals between 10 and 24 years of age worldwide []. The World Health Organization describes children as persons aged <18 years and youth as persons between 15 and 24 years of age [,]. With people aged <25 years accounting for 42% of the world population and being among the most vulnerable [], measures to protect their lives and well-being are of utmost importance.
Addressing the issue of violence requires a multifaceted approach involving various levels of society. Mobile technology greatly expands the possible range of available options for addressing these issues []. Increasingly, health and human service organizations, policy makers, as well as practitioners across the world have recognized the potential of smartphone apps in helping to address social issues including interpersonal violence and mental health issues at both individual and community levels []. The global increase in smartphone ownership makes this option even more potentially useful. The number of smartphone users worldwide has continuously increased from approximately 1 billion in 2014 to 4.88 billion in 2024 and is forecast to reach 6.4 billion by 2029 []. There were almost 7 billion smartphone mobile network subscriptions worldwide in 2023, and this number is expected to exceed 7.7 billion by 2028 []. Smartphone apps are a particularly important avenue for addressing youth’s issues, as youth tend to be more open to technological services compared to the more traditional approaches []. The prevalence of smartphones among the younger demographic is well known [], with smartphones being ubiquitous among youth and young adults. As of January 2024, a significant 98% of Gen Z (people born between 1997 and 2012) own a smartphone []. In April 2022, a significant 87% of teenagers between 12 and 17 years of age in Canada were using smartphones; half of the children between 7 and 11 years of age and 39% of children between 2 and 6 years of age were reported to use a mobile device []. Similarly, in the United States, 88% of teenagers aged between 13 and 18 years owned a smartphone in 2021; among younger kids between 8 and 12 years of age, ownership of tablets (57%) was more prevalent than smartphone ownership (43%) [].
Widespread access to mobile phones opens up opportunities for their use as tools to mitigate the risk of harm to children and youth, improving outcomes in instances when such incidences occur. There has been a growing interest in the use of mobile apps for enhancing personal safety; however, there is a lack of evidence on the use and effectiveness of such apps that are specifically geared toward protecting children and youth. Most of the literature on mobile apps has been focused on health and fitness [,-]. There are also some studies on personal safety apps, but most of them either cover a wide age demographic, are focused on sexual violence against women (with no youth focus), or are focused solely on app development with no associated evaluation [,-]. Furthermore, evidence on apps intended for autonomous use by children and youth is lacking in the literature. Ford et al [] published an overview of smartphone apps available in the United Kingdom. Of the 86 apps included in the study, 52% targeted the general population, 26% targeted women, and 13% targeted families. None of the studies specifically targeted youth. Nonetheless, that research found that app functionality included providing an alarm (22%), sending alerts to predesignated contacts (71%), providing evidence capture (34%), and offering educational information (26%). More than 70% of apps had a user rating of at least 4 out of 5. Key aspects included positive consequences of app use, technical issues, dissatisfaction with the financial cost of some features, and ethical issues []. The effectiveness of the apps was not evaluated.
Most of the literature on personal safety apps is focused on preventing sexual violence or domestic violence, particularly against women. This is not surprising, considering the high prevalence of sexual violence victimization in women globally. For example, in Canada, the rate of IPV was >3 times higher among women and girls compared to men and boys in 2022 []. Doria et al [] identified 3 themes in their review on women’s experience with safety apps: security, accessibility, and knowledge. Although there was no evaluation of effectiveness, a common thread among most of the app users was their view that the apps were acceptable, user-friendly, and useful []. The review highlighted the potential of smartphone interventions to become a valuable tool for preventing sexual violence in women. Sumra et al [] conducted a systematic review that included 136 smartphone apps that targeted domestic violence prevention. They found that over two-thirds of the apps (71%) were released between 2020 and 2022, with almost a half of them (46%) being from northeast America. Five app categories were described: emergency assistance (44%), avoidance (21%), informative (21%), legal information (7%), and self-assessment (5%) [], which were similar to those identified by other researchers []. Unique features among the apps included geo-fences, shake-based alert, accelerometer-based alert, alert auto cancelation, anonymous communication, and data encryption []. None of the apps had automated alerts or used artificial intelligence to help potential survivors. There was no focus on youth and no evaluation of effectiveness. A 2016 systematic app search for intimate partner and sexual violence prevention and response apps found that, of the 132 unique apps identified, 66% targeted adults, 24% targeted the general population, 27% targeted young adults, 10% targeted teens, and 2% targeted children aged <12 years. However, the app categories were not mutually exclusive, and the specific apps were not identified. As a result, it is impossible to determine what proportion of the apps specifically targeted the younger demographic or to identify them []. The apps were found to vary greatly in quality, and sharing information or resources was the primary purpose of most of the apps (76%).
Draughon Moret et al [], who were experienced forensic examiners, reported that there were only a few apps that they would use as clinicians or recommend to their patients after a physical or sexual assault. The apps focused largely on education and information sharing; therefore, it was thought that they may not successfully meet their desired goal. In addition, they experienced difficulty in finding the apps, as searches for violence prevention and response apps yielded many disturbing apps (zombie-killing games, dating sims, etc), which could potentially retraumatize patients. Furthermore, there was a lack of quality and evidence base among the apps [].
Reviews focused on sexual violence or domestic violence prevention have found that most of the apps addressed emergencies, with a large proportion of apps focusing on avoidance or education [-]. They concluded that further research on app development should focus on automation, making better use of artificial intelligence, speech recognition, and pitch detection to assist in live analysis of the situation and for accurately generating emergency alerts []. Other recommendations for further research include a greater focus on app efficacy, sustainability, and data security [].
Despite widespread access to mobile apps and the growing interest in their use for enhancing personal safety, there is a lack of evidence on the use and effectiveness of such apps that are specifically geared toward protecting children and youth.
ObjectiveThis review aimed to understand what is known about the use of mobile apps for personal safety among at-risk children and youth.
A scoping review was conducted following published methodological guidelines by Arksey and O’Malley []. They comprise the following 6 steps: identifying the research question; consulting with stakeholders (an optional step in the framework); identifying relevant studies; selecting studies; charting the data; and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results []. A scoping review was conducted, as this type of review is particularly useful for mapping the scope, range, and character of the literature and identifying any potential gaps in the body of knowledge on a given topic []. [] provides the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist []. No protocol for this review was previously published. The term “at-risk children and youth” refers to those who are in physical or mental danger [].
The main categories of the theoretical framework developed by Jeminiwa et al [] for evaluating the quality of mobile health (mHealth) apps for adolescent users were used to provide an overview of app features. The framework has 5 categories (technical quality; engagement; support system; autonomy; and safety, privacy, and trust). However, the authors of this paper modified it to include “esthetics” (included as a subcategory of “engagement” in the framework by Jeminiwa et al []) as a distinct category to cover layout, graphics, and visual appeal. In addition, a “subjective quality” category was added to cover concepts such as usefulness and recommendability. The modifications were guided by the features of the validated Mobile App Rating Scale [,], and “personal safety” was also added by the authors to capture features such as self-tracking and a panic button ( [,]).
Identifying the Research QuestionThe research question was as follows: “What is known about the use of mobile apps to ensure personal safety among at-risk children and youth?”
Consulting With StakeholdersTo inform the research, a police service division in Alberta planning to develop a personal safety app for at-risk children and youth provided information on important issues to consider. Topics such as app features, use, users’ perceptions, and effectiveness were discussed. Issues related to privacy and security were also discussed. A computing science professor from the University of Saskatchewan with expertise in the development of apps also offered insights into key aspects of personal safety apps for youth.
Identifying Relevant StudiesBoth peer-reviewed and gray literature sources were included in this review. As non–peer-reviewed sources (eg, reports and app-specific websites) can provide valuable insights and perspectives that may not be captured solely through peer-reviewed literature, these sources were included. In particular, they provided useful information on the characteristics of the various apps. With support from an experienced research librarian, a search strategy for scholarly literature was developed and tested iteratively. In total, 5 databases were searched: Scopus, SocIndex (EBSCO platform), PsycINFO (Ovid platform), Compendex, and Inspec Archive (both Engineering Village platforms). The searches were performed from July 19 to July 30, 2023, using combinations of relevant terms, such as “at-risk,” “youth,” “children,” “safety,” and “mobile application.” Keywords included “homeless teenagers,” “runaway children,” “abandoned children,” “street youth,” “school-aged,” “Indigenous youth,” “poor children,” “juvenile offenders,” “LGBTQ+,” “sexually abused teenagers,” “domestic violence,” “protect,” “prevent,” “safety app,” “mobile-based,” and “smartphone.” Adjustments to the search strategy across different databases were made due to database-specific indexing or features. For example, both APA PsycINFO (Ovid platform) and SocINDEX (Ebsco platform) include extensive but differing controlled vocabularies for children who are abused, fostered, homeless, or neglected and their care. APA PsycINFO uses terms such as “foster care,” “child neglect,” and “protective services,” whereas SocINDEX uses “foster home care,” “child abuse,” and “child protection services.” Where possible, equivalent free-text terms were used across all the databases. Syntax was adjusted according to the specifications of each database or platform. All citations were imported into EndNote version 9.3.3 (Clarivate Analytics, Inc), and duplicates were removed. For the gray literature, Google and Google Scholar were searched using similar terms to those applied to the peer-reviewed strategy.
Study SelectionIncluded articles satisfied the following criteria: (1) participants were at-risk children or youth; (2) the article focused on mobile apps designed for personal safety; (3) the children and youth had autonomous control of the app; (4) the article was published between 2005 and 2023, as the use of mobile apps for safety applications has been fairly recent; and (5) the evaluation study assessed app users’ experience, app engagement, or app impact. Articles intended to be used for characterizing the apps did not need to be evaluation studies. As the terms “children” and “youth” are variously described in the literature, no strict age limits were applied for inclusion; rather, if the target or study population was described using descriptors for children and youth such as “teenagers,” “adolescents,” or “college students,” the study was included. Due to the paucity of available articles, studies focused on participants not strictly considered “at risk” were also included, as long as they focused on children and youth. If ≥1 of the abovementioned criteria were not satisfied for a given app, the articles were excluded. Bullying prevention apps focusing solely on cyberbullying were outside of the scope of this project and were therefore excluded, as were articles not available in English.
For the peer-reviewed literature search, 2 researchers (CB-F and TK) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified articles. For quality assurance, a portion of the articles was reviewed by both researchers. Conflicts were resolved through discussion. In cases of disagreement, a third researcher (DM) arbitrated. For the gray literature search, the same 2 researchers systematically searched Google and Google Scholar using similar keywords to those applied to the peer-reviewed search and scanned the first 50 “hits” generated from applying the search terms. Excel software (Microsoft Corporation) was used for data management.
Charting the DataInformation collected from papers was extracted using a standard template. The data extracted included the following elements: goal of app, operating system, date launched, provider or developer, target users, general description, features, app funding, study aim, study type, study period, methods, participants, outcomes measured, findings, facilitators and barriers to app use, app limitations, and conclusions and recommendations. The data extraction tables were piloted and revised as necessary. To ensure consistency in data extraction, CB-F and TK each independently extracted data from a single article and then reviewed each other’s work to establish a consistent approach to charting. The researchers met several times during the screening process to ensure a consistent data charting approach.
Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the ResultsThe apps were categorized into 4 groups based on app goals and target populations. A descriptive analytical approach was then used to summarize the findings. This involved using common analytical frameworks for summarizing different aspects of the included articles and collecting standard information from each of them []. For example, to summarize app features and users’ perceptions, a modified version of the framework developed by Jeminiwa et al [] was used. For app features, 6 categories were captured: engagement; esthetics; support system; personal safety; autonomy; and safety, privacy, and trust. Four categories were captured for users’ perception: engagement; esthetics; safety, privacy, and trust; and subjective quality. Evidence on the effectiveness of the apps was organized by outcomes, such as IPV and other sexual violence, school violence and bullying, and suicide ideation and suicide risk. Data on app evaluation were summarized in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.
A total of 1986 articles were identified through peer-reviewed (n=1775, 89.37% articles) and gray literature searches (n=211, 10.62% articles). Most of the identified literature on mobile apps primarily focused on health and fitness [,-]. There were also some studies on personal safety apps; however, most either covered a broad or older demographic, focused on sexual violence against women, or solely addressed app development without evaluation [,-]. Consequently, of the 1986 articles, only 68 (3.42%) were eligible for full-text screening. Finally, 41 articles (n=27, 66% peer-reviewed and n=14, 34% non–peer-reviewed) met the inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. Collectively, these 41 articles provided data on the features and evaluation of 9 apps that met our inclusion criteria. Several studies reported on various aspects or phases of the app development and evaluation process in different articles. For example, for 1 app, acceptability and impact were captured in 2 separate articles [,]. The non–peer-reviewed literature primarily provided detailed information on app characterization, including descriptions, features, and functionalities. The results of the screening and selection process are presented in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram ().
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram of study selection. Additional records identified through other sources include both non–peer-reviewed and peer-reviewed articles. Reasons for exclusion of studies include the following: not focused on children or youth; not focused on personal safety apps; no information on app use, users’ perception, or app impact; published before 2005; and non-English. Basis of App Development and Stakeholder EngagementAll 9 apps identified through the included articles are summarized in , and further details are provided in [-]. In addition to the language used in the respective articles to describe the type of app, the descriptors from the typology of crime prevention apps by Wood et al [] were also used. For example, some apps were described as decision aid apps, which are apps designed to help individuals in making decisions based on high-quality evidence []. The use of a relevant theory as a basis for development was noted for 3 (33%) of the 9 apps: ambivalent sexism theory and romantic love myths for Liad@s (Universitat de València) [,], cognitive behavior theory and dialectic behavior therapy for BlueIce (Oxford Health NHS), and acceptance and commitment therapy for iBobbly (Black Dog Institute). In addition, myPlan (Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing) was developed based on literature on empowerment, internet safety decision aid, and safety planning []; +FORT (AXEL; University of Montréal) was developed based on a coordinated sequence of 4 mechanisms of action central to problem-solving []; and organizations focused on domestic and sexual violence were consulted in the development of uSafeUS (University of New Hampshire) []. The development of the YTH Street Connect prototype app (Santa Clara University Frugal Innovation Hub) was based on information obtained from formative research on homeless or unstably housed youth and mHealth apps and in consultation with homeless or unstably housed service providers []. Collaborators from multiple sectors were involved in the development of most of the included apps (7/9, 77%). They included universities (7/9, 77%), schools (2/9, 22%), target users (7/9, 77%), parents (3/9, 33%), companies or organizations (3/9, 33%), and mental health professionals (2/9, 22%). In total, 7 (77%) of the 9 apps are available in English only, while 1 (11%) is available in English and French (+FORT) and 1 (11%) is available in Spanish (Liad@s). In total, 6 (66%) of the 9 apps are currently available, 5 (56%) of which may be freely downloaded and 1 app, 1 (11%) is available only by prescription from child mental health services [,]. Of the 3 apps that are not currently available, 2 (67%) were simply prototype apps (YTH StreetConnect) [] and Circle of 6 [Co6] (Youth Tech Health; Kliq) []) and 1 (33%; iBobbly) was recently discontinued []. On the basis of an official statement of the First Nations team at the Black Dog Institute (iBobbly developers) in New South Wales, Australia, iBobbly was decommissioned in response to evolving community needs, with the focus now being on providing and recommending best-in-market products (email, November 12, 2023).
Table 1. Overview of app features.App features and descriptorsHomeless youth supportDating and sexual violence preventionBullying and school violence preventionSelf-harm and suicide preventionYTH StreetConnect []Circle of 6 []Liad@s [,]myPlan [,-]uSafeUS [,,]+FORT [,,]uSafeHS [,]BlueIce [, ,,]iBobbly [-]EngagementaPIN: personal identification number.
App CharacteristicsThe apps were categorized into 4 groups based on app goals and target populations: homeless youth support (1 app), dating and sexual violence prevention (4 apps), bullying and school violence prevention (1 app), and self-harm and suicide prevention (2 apps). A more detailed description is provided in . All 9 apps were designed for the autonomous use of youth. They all featured goal-specific educational content and were available on both iOS and Android devices.
Homeless Youth SupportYTH StreetConnect is a decision aid mobile phone app developed in 2016 with the goal of connecting homeless or unstably housed youth in Santa Clara County, California, United States, to health and vital resources []. YTH StreetConnect Pro is a companion tablet app for providers who serve these youth []. Both are discussed as a single app for the purpose of this review. YTH StreetConnect has features such as a location-based database, interactive mapping, and emergency hotlines. The app helps youth locate services using visual enhancements. Youth have access to sexual health information and weekly health tips via SMS text messaging. YTH StreetConnect Pro features include a referral function and a medical questionnaire to assess clients’ homelessness vulnerability and sexual risk [].
Dating and Sexual Violence PreventionFour dating and sexual violence prevention apps were identified, 3 (75%) of which were developed in the United States (Co6, myPlan, and USafeUS) and 1 (Liad@s) in Spain [,,,-,,]. Liad@s targets adolescents, USafeUS targets college or university students, and Co6 and myPlan target people at risk of sexual violence. Two of the apps have decision aid or personalized action plan features (myPlan and uSafeUS), and 1 app has an interactive game format (Liad@s). Two apps have an emergency text or a fake-a-call or text feature (Co6 and USafeUS, respectively), and 1 (USafeUS) app has an incident reporting feature. Co6, which was a pilot app, is not currently available on the market [].
Bullying and School Violence PreventionTwo apps were identified in the bullying and school violence prevention category: +FORT (Canada) [,,] and uSafeHS (University of New Hampshire; United States) [,]. +FORT, developed in Quebec, was first available in French and was subsequently made available in English. Both apps target high school students, with +FORT aimed at preventing bullying victimization. uSafeHS aims to prevent school violence in general, including bullying (). +FORT allows youth to journal their bullying victimization experiences and compiles the information in simple graphs, which youth may use to enhance their safety awareness [,]. uSafeHS has an administrative platform, incident reporting, and an interactive game feature to facilitate social and emotional learning [,].
Self-Harm and Suicide PreventionBlueIce [,,,,-] and iBobbly [-,,] are self-harm and suicide prevention apps that were identified. BlueIce targets young people attending Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services across the United Kingdom and aims to help them reduce urges to self-harm. iBobbly targeted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians aged ≥15 years (youth, in particular) and aimed to tackle suicide prevention in a culturally appropriate way. Both have emergency call or text, diary or self-check, and activities that youth may engage in as features.
Characteristics of App Evaluation StudiesA total of 14 studies conducted between 2013 and 2022 were identified and reported in 16 peer-reviewed papers. In total, 15 papers reported on experimental study designs (3 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] [,,], 9 single-arm design [,,-,,,,], 2 quasi-experimental design [,], and 1 that used single-arm and quasi-experimental designs in 2 phases []). One paper reported on a cross-sectional study []. All the studies included self-reported data. The studies were conducted in the United States (5 apps and 9 papers [,-,,,,,]), Australia [,], Canada [], Spain [,], and the United Kingdom [,] (1 app each).
The 14 studies were conducted across several different settings as follows: 6 (43%) in college or universities [,,,,,,]; 3 (21%) in high schools [,], and 1 (7%) each in mental health services for children [,], childcare homes [], Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities [,], the homeless youth context [], and dating locations [].
The duration of app use ranged from 20 to 40 minutes in 1 single-arm qualitative study [] to 12 months in an RCT. For 7 (50%) of the 14 studies (corresponding to 6 apps), the apps were used for at least 6 weeks.
Characteristics of ParticipantsThe reviewed studies included >3800 children and youth, but demographics were not consistently reported. Reported average age ranged from 14 to 27 years; in 1 study, one-third were aged ≥26 years [], and in another study, the age range was 19 to 29 years []. Where information on sex was reported, only 1 study had more men than women [] (in a childcare home), and in 2 studies evaluating dating and sexual violence prevention apps, only women were enrolled [,]. Only 3 studies captured information on sexual orientation [,,]. Where reported, the proportion of White participants ranged from 33% (2/6) [] to 71.3% (122/171) [,].
In addition to children and youth, other stakeholders (eg, parents, app administrators, and police officers) were included as participants in the evaluation of 4 apps [,,,,].
Study Outcomes and Measurement Approachesprovides a summary of the outcomes and associated measurement tools used in the included studies. Outcomes comprised app engagement (4/9, 44% apps), users’ experiences (9/9, 100% apps), and effectiveness of the app (7/9, 78% apps; [,,,-,,,,,,]). Effect measures were safety behavior, bystander behavior, sexism, IPV, self-harm, suicide risk, depression, anxiety, and bullying victimization. A wide range of tools was used for measuring outcomes. Self-reported measures were used for all 3 types of outcomes reported (app use: 2/4, 50% apps, users’ experience: 9/9, 100% apps, and effectiveness: 7/7, 100% apps). Validated tools were used in the evaluation of effectiveness of 86% (6/7) of the apps. For the remaining app (+FORT), even though no validated tool was used for measuring effectiveness, the app itself uses items adapted from the validated Olweus Bullying Questionnaire for logging information about users’ bullying experiences to help users identify more effective strategies to deal with bullying victimization []. Objective measurements were used for measuring app use for 2 (50%) out of 4 apps and for measuring the effectiveness of 1 (14%) out of 7 apps. For example, for the BlueIce app, the change in users’ frequency of self-harming was determined by comparing historical clinical data with the self-reports of postintervention self-harming incidence []. For 3 apps, the general internet use of app users was also assessed, and self-reported, unvalidated measures were used [,,,]. Further details on study outcomes and measurement approaches are provided in .
Table 2. Study outcomes and measurement approaches.Outcomes and tool name and/or descriptionMode of measurementAppStudyGeneral internet useFour studies reported data on the use of 4 apps: 2 on dating and sexual violence prevention (Co6 [] and uSafeUS []), 1 on bullying and school violence prevention (uSafeHS) [], and 1 on self-harm or suicide prevention (iBobbly) []. and [,,,-,,,,,,] provide details on the characteristics and the findings of the included evaluation studies. On the basis of app download and use, the findings of 2 studies indicated that there is a high level of app use among high school students (uSafeUS) [] and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth (iBobbly) []. Two studies involving college students found generally low app engagement [,]. The findings indicated that younger app users had higher engagement levels than older users, and women were more engaged than men []. The reasons for low app use among college students included the perceived redundancy with existing smartphone features, college women’s discomfort with group messaging (Co6) [], and the opinion among older college students that the app was not relevant to their needs (uSafeUS) [].
App Users’ ExperienceData on users’ experience of the apps were obtained from 13 studies, with all 4 app categories being covered ( and ; and ) [,, -,,,,,,]. In general, participants liked the app features and perceived the apps to be easy to use and effective. One dating and sexual violence prevention app (myPlan), 1 self-harm and suicide prevention app (iBobbly), and 1 bullying and school violence prevention app (+FORT) were perceived to be judgment free by youth [,,]. Among the 9 apps, the features perceived to be the most useful included map features, personalized action plan, mood diary, and bullying prevention strategies. The appealing features, confidentiality, accessibility, ease of use, and useful resources were common facilitators of app use among youth. In addition, the judgment-free nature of some apps facilitated their use. By contrast, the repetitive, redundant nature and lack of specific resource information were among the reported barriers to app use.
Table 3. Youth’s perceptions of mobile personal safety apps.Users’ perception and descriptorsHomeless youth supportDating and sexual violence preventionBullying and school violence preventionSelf-harm and suicide preventionYTH StreetConnect []Circle of 6 []Liad@s []myPlan [,,,]USafeUS [,]+FORT []uSafeHS []BlueIce [,]iBobbly []Engagement
留言 (0)