Background: People with suicidal thoughts are more inclined to seek technology-delivered interventions than in-person forms of treatment, making mobile apps for suicide prevention an ideal platform for treatment delivery. This review examines apps designed for suicide prevention, with a specific focus on user engagement. Objective: This study aims to update the literature and broadly evaluate the landscape of mobile health apps for suicide prevention; examine apps with key features and primary approaches to suicide prevention; and systematically evaluate the engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information of the apps. Methods: All apps related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors were identified in the Google Play and iOS app stores and were systematically reviewed for their content and quality. The mobile app rating scale (MARS) was used to evaluate app usability and engagement. Results: Of the 66 apps identified, 42 (64%) were specifically designed for people with suicidal ideation, and 59 (89%) had at least one best practice feature for suicide risk reduction. The mean overall MARS score of all apps was 3.5 (range 2.1-4.5), with 83% (55/66) of apps having a minimum acceptability score of 3. The total MARS score was not associated with the user app rating (r=−0.001; P=.99) or the number of features (r=0.24; P=.09). Conclusions: This study identified many usable and engaging apps in app stores designed for suicide prevention. However, there are only limited apps for clinicians. Thus, mobile apps for suicide prevention should be carefully developed and clinically evaluated.

Objectives: To investigate the effect of emotion regulation skills‐focused (ERSF) interventions to reduce pain intensity and improve psychological outcomes for people with chronic pain and to narratively report on safety and intervention compliance.Methods: Six databases and four registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 29 April 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta‐analyses for eight studies (902 participants) assessed pain intensity (primary outcome), emotion regulation, affect, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and pain interference (secondary outcomes), at two time points when available, post‐intervention (closest to intervention end) and follow‐up (the first measurement after the post‐intervention assessment).Results: Compared to TAU, pain intensity improved post‐intervention (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −10.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] [−17.55, −2.56]) and at follow‐up (WMD = −11.38; 95% CI [−13.55, −9.21]). Emotion regulation improved post‐intervention (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.57; 95% CI [0.14, 1.01]), and depressive symptoms improved at follow‐up (SMD = −0.45; 95% CI [−0.66, −0.24]). Compared to active comparators, anxiety symptoms improved favouring the comparator post‐intervention (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI [0.03, 0.18]), and compared to CBT, pain interference improved post‐intervention (SMD = −0.37; 95% CI [−0.69, −0.04]). Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.Significance: The findings provide evidence that ERSF interventions reduce pain intensity for people with chronic pain compared to usual treatment. These interventions are at least as beneficial to reduce pain intensity as the current gold standard psychological intervention, CBT. However, the limited number of studies and certainty of evidence mean further high‐quality RCTs are warranted. Additionally, further research is needed to identify whether ERSF interventions may be more beneficial for specific chronic pain conditions.