arxiv: 2604.16770 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-18 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: unknown

Exploring Ethical Concerns of Mobile Applications from App Reviews: A Literature Survey

Aakash Sorathiya , Gouri Ginde

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE

keywords app reviewsethical concernsmobile applicationsprivacysecurityliterature surveynon-functional requirementsuser feedback

0 comments

The pith

App reviews reveal persistent ethical barriers in mobile apps to privacy, security, fairness and related areas, according to a survey of 37 studies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper conducts a literature survey to bring together existing research on identifying ethical concerns such as privacy and security in mobile applications by examining user app reviews. It reviews 37 relevant studies published since 2012 that were selected from 553 initial papers through defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The analysis covers the varying scales of the studies, their methods, and the common barriers users report in reviews. A sympathetic reader would care because these ethical issues often get mixed in with other feedback and addressing them early can help developers build more trustworthy apps. The paper also lays out a research agenda with four focus areas, including automation for extracting and classifying such reviews.

Core claim

This paper presents a comprehensive survey of this research area, covering 37 relevant studies published since 2012, identified from the initial 553 studies using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies examined vary in review counts, ranging from 500 to 626 million, and include between a single and 1.3 million apps. Our detailed analysis highlights diverse objectives, methodologies, and strategies, along with additional resources such as app privacy policies, which researchers generally utilize to analyze ethical concerns. Our findings also identify persistent barriers to privacy, security, accessibility, transparency, fairness, accountability, and safety, as reported by us

What carries the argument

Systematic literature survey that applies inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter studies on app review analysis, then synthesizes their methods and the ethical barriers extracted from user feedback.

If this is right

Developers and system architects can recognize and prioritize non-functional requirements related to ethics at the initial stages of the development lifecycle.
The catalog of persistent barriers can guide improvements in app design to address user-reported concerns in privacy, security, and fairness.
Researchers can expand upon the synthesis to create tools for the automated detection of ethical concerns in app reviews.
The survey outcomes support better alignment of app features with user expectations on ethical matters from the start.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Cross-referencing app review findings with actual privacy policy texts could uncover mismatches between stated practices and user experiences.
Automated tools suggested in the agenda might be tested first on high-risk app categories such as health or finance to measure impact on complaint reduction.
The survey method itself could be repeated periodically to track whether ethical barriers decrease as apps adopt new design practices.
Extending review analysis beyond app stores to include social media mentions might capture concerns from users who do not post direct reviews.

Load-bearing premise

The 37 selected studies provide a representative and unbiased view of all research on ethical concerns in app reviews, and that app reviews themselves reliably capture users' true ethical concerns without significant reporting bias or selection effects.

What would settle it

A new large-scale review of app reviews across many categories that finds no recurring patterns of the listed ethical barriers or shows that users rarely raise these issues would undermine the synthesis of persistent barriers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16770 by Aakash Sorathiya, Gouri Ginde.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Process of our literature survey based on the guidelines outlined by Kitchenham [26] to conduct SLRs, which has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Details of study selection procedure following Kitchenham’s guidelines [26]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Temporal evolution of the number of studies in the domain of app review analysis for ethical concerns. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The geographical distribution of the papers published by teams on the subject. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Word cloud of the terminologies used in the primary studies to refer to “app reviews”. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Taxonomy of Root Causes of Ethical Concerns in Mobile Applications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Privacy, security, and accessibility, like ethical concerns in mobile applications (a.k.a. apps), commonly subsumed under non-functional requirements, are generally reported by users through app reviews available in app stores. However, these remain unidentified among other types of reviews, such as user experiences, problem reports, and new feature discussions. Over the past decade, extensive research has focused on extracting valuable information from app reviews, including feature requests and bug reports. However, there remains a lack of a synthesis of research related to app review analysis for exploring users' ethical concerns. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of this research area, covering 37 relevant studies published since 2012, identified from the initial 553 studies using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies examined vary in review counts, ranging from 500 to 626 million, and include between a single and 1.3 million apps. Our detailed analysis highlights diverse objectives, methodologies, and strategies, along with additional resources such as app privacy policies, which researchers generally utilize to analyze ethical concerns. Our findings also identify persistent barriers to privacy, security, accessibility, transparency, fairness, accountability, and safety, as reported by users in app reviews. Furthermore, we propose a research agenda that focuses on four key areas, including automated extraction and classification of ethical concerns-related app reviews. Our survey outcomes can assist developers and system architects in recognizing and prioritizing non-functional requirements at the initial stages of the development lifecycle, whereas researchers can expand upon this synthesis to create tools for the automated detection of ethical concerns.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a competent but modest literature survey that organizes existing work on ethical concerns from app reviews without adding new methods or data.

read the letter

This paper is a literature survey that collects and summarizes 37 studies on pulling ethical issues like privacy, security, and fairness out of mobile app reviews. It starts from 553 papers and applies inclusion criteria to narrow them down, then maps objectives, methods, and recurring barriers reported by users. The authors also lay out a four-point research agenda focused on things like automated classification of those reviews and better use of privacy policies as supporting material. That synthesis is the main contribution, and it does a clean job of showing how this niche sits inside broader app review mining work since 2012. The writing is straightforward and the structure follows standard systematic review steps, which makes the barriers section easy to scan for practitioners who want to catch non-functional requirements earlier. The agenda items are actionable enough that a developer or tool builder could pick one up without much translation. The soft spots are mostly what you expect from a survey: it largely restates patterns already visible in the 37 papers rather than deriving a new framework or running fresh experiments. Methodological details on the exact search strings and quality scoring are thinner than ideal, so a reader cannot fully judge how exhaustive the set really is. The assumption that app reviews reliably surface true ethical concerns is stated but not stress-tested against known biases in review data. No circular claims or invented results appear. This paper is for software engineering researchers or practitioners who need a quick entry point into ethical review analysis; it is not aimed at theorists or people outside the SE ethics corner. It deserves a serious referee because the gap it claims is real, the execution is consistent, and the agenda could steer follow-on work. I would send it for review with a request for tighter method reporting, but it is not a desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic literature review surveying research on exploring ethical concerns of mobile applications through analysis of app reviews. Starting from 553 studies, it selects 37 relevant ones published since 2012 based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review synthesizes the objectives, methods, and additional resources used in these studies, identifies recurring barriers to privacy, security, accessibility, transparency, fairness, accountability, and safety as reported in app reviews, and outlines a research agenda with four key areas, prominently featuring automated extraction and classification of ethical concerns-related reviews. The outcomes aim to assist developers in prioritizing non-functional requirements and researchers in developing detection tools.

Significance. Assuming the selection and synthesis are robust, this work offers a timely consolidation of a growing body of research at the intersection of app review mining and ethical software engineering. By mapping the landscape of methods and highlighting user-reported barriers, it can inform both practice—helping developers address ethical non-functional requirements early—and future research on automation. The proposed agenda provides concrete directions for advancing the field beyond manual analysis.

major comments (2)

[Methodology] The reduction from 553 to 37 studies is described as using 'specific inclusion and exclusion criteria,' but the paper does not provide the complete list of search databases, exact search strings, or the full criteria applied. This omission hinders evaluation of the survey's scope and potential selection bias.
[Quality Assessment] Details regarding the quality assessment of the included studies are not fully specified. In systematic literature reviews, explicit quality criteria are essential to support the reliability of the synthesized findings on objectives, methods, and barriers.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The phrasing 'include between a single and 1.3 million apps' could be clarified to 'range from a single app to 1.3 million apps' for better readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation of minor revision. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve transparency and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methodology] The reduction from 553 to 37 studies is described as using 'specific inclusion and exclusion criteria,' but the paper does not provide the complete list of search databases, exact search strings, or the full criteria applied. This omission hinders evaluation of the survey's scope and potential selection bias.

Authors: We agree that the search strategy details were insufficiently reported. The manuscript referenced the criteria at a high level but omitted the explicit databases, search strings, and full criteria list. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection (and appendix if needed) that fully documents the search databases, exact Boolean search strings, the PRISMA-style flow, and the complete inclusion/exclusion criteria applied to arrive at the final 37 studies. This will allow readers to assess scope and bias directly. revision: yes
Referee: [Quality Assessment] Details regarding the quality assessment of the included studies are not fully specified. In systematic literature reviews, explicit quality criteria are essential to support the reliability of the synthesized findings on objectives, methods, and barriers.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit quality assessment reporting. Our selection process incorporated relevance to ethical concerns in app reviews and peer-reviewed status, but we did not present a formal quality scoring framework or detailed criteria. In the revision, we will insert a new subsection describing the quality assessment approach, including the criteria used (e.g., methodological rigor, relevance to research questions, and data sufficiency) and how low-quality studies were handled. This addition will strengthen the justification for the synthesized findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

This paper is a systematic literature review synthesizing 37 prior studies on ethical concerns extracted from app reviews. It contains no mathematical derivations, predictions, fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or uniqueness theorems. All claims (study selection via explicit criteria, identification of barriers, and proposed research agenda) are presented as direct descriptive outcomes of the SLR process without any reduction to the paper's own inputs by construction. The representativeness of the 37 studies is acknowledged as an inherent SLR limitation rather than a load-bearing circular premise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that a systematic literature review using standard inclusion/exclusion criteria yields a complete and unbiased synthesis of the field; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard systematic literature review inclusion and exclusion criteria can reliably identify all relevant studies on app review analysis for ethical concerns from an initial pool of 553 papers
Invoked when reducing the initial set to the final 37 studies

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5579 in / 1473 out tokens · 68852 ms · 2026-05-10T07:30:23.652565+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

C. J. Martin, The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?, Ecological economics 121 (2016) 149–159

2016
[2]

Dennison, L

L. Dennison, L. Morrison, G. Conway, L. Yardley, et al., Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: qualitative study, Journal of medical Internet research 15 (2013) e2583

2013
[3]

Gillespie, Are you being scanned? how facial recognition technology follows you, even as you shop, The Guardian 24 (2019)

E. Gillespie, Are you being scanned? how facial recognition technology follows you, even as you shop, The Guardian 24 (2019)

2019
[4]

Hill, Wrongfully accused by an algorithm, in: Ethics of Data and Analytics, Auerbach Publications, 2022, pp

K. Hill, Wrongfully accused by an algorithm, in: Ethics of Data and Analytics, Auerbach Publications, 2022, pp. 138–142

2022
[5]

Zuboff, The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, edn, PublicAffairs, New York (2019)

S. Zuboff, The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, edn, PublicAffairs, New York (2019)

2019
[6]

Chung, B

L. Chung, B. A. Nixon, E. Yu, J. Mylopoulos, Non-functional requirements in software engineering, volume 5, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[7]

L. Chung, Dealing with security requirements during the development of information systems, in: International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer, 1993, pp. 234–251

1993
[8]

Breaux, A

T. Breaux, A. Antón, Analyzing regulatory rules for privacy and security requirements, IEEE transac- tions on software engineering 34 (2008) 5–20

2008
[9]

N.Manasreh, P.Spoletini, M.Valero, V.Nino, I.Sanchez-Cardona, Designingage-friendlyapps: Mining functional, usability, and privacy requirements from existing mobile applications, in: 2025 IEEE 33rd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), IEEE, 2025, pp. 605–611

2025
[10]

E. Liywalii, Requirements engineering (re) in artificial intelligence (ai) systems implementation: The need to emphasize non-functional requirements (nfrs) for ethical ai, in: Southern African Conference for Artificial Intelligence Research, Springer, 2024, pp. 423–439

2024
[11]

Martínez-Fernández, J

S. Martínez-Fernández, J. Bogner, X. Franch, M. Oriol, J. Siebert, A. Trendowicz, A. M. Vollmer, S. Wagner, Software engineering for ai-based systems: a survey, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 31 (2022) 1–59

2022
[12]

Anderson, O

K. Anderson, O. Burford, L. Emmerton, Mobile health apps to facilitate self-care: a qualitative study of user experiences, PloS one 11 (2016) e0156164

2016
[13]

Palomba, M

F. Palomba, M. Linares-Vásquez, G. Bavota, R. Oliveto, M. Di Penta, D. Poshyvanyk, A. De Lucia, Crowdsourcing user reviews to support the evolution of mobile apps, Journal of Systems and Software 137 (2018) 143–162

2018
[14]

Biswas, P

M. Biswas, P. R. Anish, S. Ghaisas, Interpretable app review classification with transformers, in: 2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), IEEE, 2024, pp. 26–34

2024
[15]

Palomba, M

F. Palomba, M. Linares-Vásquez, G. Bavota, R. Oliveto, M. Di Penta, D. Poshyvanyk, A. De Lucia, User reviews matter! tracking crowdsourced reviews to support evolution of successful apps, in: 2015 IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME), IEEE, 2015, pp. 291– 300

2015
[16]

X. Li, Z. Zhang, K. Stefanidis, Mobile app evolution analysis based on user reviews, in: New Trends in Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, IOS Press, 2018, pp. 773–786. 35

2018
[17]

N. Chen, J. Lin, S. C. Hoi, X. Xiao, B. Zhang, Ar-miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace, in: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering, 2014, pp. 767–778

2014
[18]

Pelloni, G

L. Pelloni, G. Grano, A. Ciurumelea, S. Panichella, F. Palomba, H. C. Gall, Becloma: Augmenting stack traces with user review information, in: 2018 IEEE 25th international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER), IEEE, 2018, pp. 522–526

2018
[19]

Wright, A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology, Ethics and information technology 13 (2011) 199–226

D. Wright, A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology, Ethics and information technology 13 (2011) 199–226

2011
[20]

D. Kaur, S. Uslu, K. J. Rittichier, A. Durresi, Trustworthy artificial intelligence: a review, ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 55 (2022) 1–38

2022
[21]

Commission, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, 2019

E. Commission, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, 2019. URL:https://digital-strategy.ec. europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai

2019
[22]

Genc-Nayebi, A

N. Genc-Nayebi, A. Abran, A systematic literature review: Opinion mining studies from mobile app store user reviews, Journal of Systems and Software 125 (2017) 207–219

2017
[23]

Dąbrowski, E

J. Dąbrowski, E. Letier, A. Perini, A. Susi, Analysing app reviews for software engineering: a systematic literature review, Empirical Software Engineering 27 (2022) 43

2022
[24]

Alshawi, M

A. Alshawi, M. Al-Razgan, F. H. AlKallas, R. A. B. Suhaim, R. Al-Tamimi, N. Alharbi, S. O. AlSaif, Data privacy during pandemics: A systematic literature review of covid-19 smartphone applications, PeerJ Computer Science 8 (2022) e826

2022
[25]

S. U. Masruroh, N. A. R. Vitalaya, H. T. Sukmana, I. Subchi, D. Khairani, Y. Durachman, Evaluation of usability and accessibility of mobile application for people with disability: Systematic literature review, in: 2022 International Conference on Science and Technology (ICOSTECH), IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–7

2022
[26]

Kitchenham, Procedures for performing systematic reviews, Keele, UK, Keele University 33 (2004) 1–26

B. Kitchenham, Procedures for performing systematic reviews, Keele, UK, Keele University 33 (2004) 1–26

2004
[27]

C. Wohlin, Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering, in: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, 2014, pp. 1–10

2014
[28]

mlco2/codecarbon: v2.4.1,

M. Grootendorst, Maartengr/keybert: Bibtex, 2021. URL:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 4461265. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4461265

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo 2021
[29]

J. Ramos, et al., Using tf-idf to determine word relevance in document queries, in: Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, volume 242, Citeseer, 2003, pp. 29–48

2003
[30]

K. W. Church, Word2vec, Natural Language Engineering 23 (2017) 155–162

2017
[31]

D. Cer, Y. Yang, S.-y. Kong, N. Hua, N. Limtiaco, R. S. John, N. Constant, M. Guajardo-Cespedes, S. Yuan, C. Tar, et al., Universal sentence encoder, arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.11175 (2018)

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[32]

Pennington, R

J. Pennington, R. Socher, C. D. Manning, Glove: Global vectors for word representation, in: Proceed- ings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), 2014, pp. 1532–1543

2014
[33]

Weinberger, A

K. Weinberger, A. Dasgupta, J. Langford, A. Smola, J. Attenberg, Feature hashing for large scale multitask learning, in: Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, 2009, pp. 1113–1120. 36

2009
[34]

Torkkola, Feature extraction by non-parametric mutual information maximization, Journal of machine learning research 3 (2003) 1415–1438

K. Torkkola, Feature extraction by non-parametric mutual information maximization, Journal of machine learning research 3 (2003) 1415–1438

2003
[35]

Fereday, E

J. Fereday, E. Muir-Cochrane, Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development, International journal of qualitative methods 5 (2006) 80–92

2006
[36]

Y. Liu, M. Ott, N. Goyal, J. Du, M. Joshi, D. Chen, O. Levy, M. Lewis, L. Zettlemoyer, V. Stoyanov, Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907
[37]

J. L. Fleiss, J. Cohen, The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability, Educational and psychological measurement 33 (1973) 613–619

1973
[38]

D. J. Solove, A taxonomy of privacy, U. Pa. l. Rev. 154 (2005) 477

2005
[39]

Wang, Privacy-enhancing technologies, in: Handbook of research on social and organizational liabilities in information security, IGI Global, 2009, pp

Y. Wang, Privacy-enhancing technologies, in: Handbook of research on social and organizational liabilities in information security, IGI Global, 2009, pp. 203–227

2009
[40]

M. S. Mendes, E. S. Furtado, Uux-posts: a tool for extracting and classifying postings related to the use of a system, in: Proceedings of the 8th Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2017, pp. 1–8

2017
[41]

M. S. Ibtasham, S. Bashir, M. Abbas, Z. Haider, M. Saadatmand, A. Cicchetti, Reqrag: Enhancing software release management through retrieval-augmented llms: An industrial study, in: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Springer, 2025, pp. 277–292

2025
[42]

Sorathiya, G

A. Sorathiya, G. Ginde, Towards extracting ethical concerns-related software requirements from app reviews, in: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2024, pp. 2251–2255

2024
[43]

R. Liu, J. Cao, K. Zhang, W. Gao, J. Liang, L. Yang, When privacy meets usability: Unobtrusive privacy permission recommendation system for mobile apps based on crowdsourcing, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 11 (2016) 864–878

2016
[44]

Alidoosti, P

R. Alidoosti, P. Lago, M. Razavian, A. Tang, Ethics in software engineering: a systematic literature review (2022)

2022
[45]

Gotterbarn, K

D. Gotterbarn, K. Miller, S. Rogerson, Software engineering code of ethics, Communications of the ACM 40 (1997) 110–118

1997
[46]

S. E. Biable, N. M. Garcia, D. Midekso, Proposed ethical framework for software requirements engi- neering, IET Software 17 (2023) 526–537

2023
[47]

Hosseini, A

M. Hosseini, A. Shahri, K. Phalp, R. Ali, Foundations for transparency requirements engineering, in: Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 22nd International Working Conference, REFSQ 2016, Gothenburg, Sweden, March 14-17, 2016, Proceedings 22, Springer, 2016, pp. 225–231

2016
[48]

T. Shah, S. Patel, A review of requirement engineering issues and challenges in various software development methods, International Journal of Computer Applications 99 (2014) 36–45

2014
[49]

Mudduluru, Value based requirements engineering: State-of-art and survey, 2016

P. Mudduluru, Value based requirements engineering: State-of-art and survey, 2016

2016
[50]

Begier, Users’ involvement may help respect social and ethical values and improve software quality, Information Systems Frontiers 12 (2010) 389–397

B. Begier, Users’ involvement may help respect social and ethical values and improve software quality, Information Systems Frontiers 12 (2010) 389–397

2010
[51]

Vallor, A

S. Vallor, A. Narayanan, An introduction to software engineering ethics, 2013. URL:https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59702936. 37

2013
[52]

Tushev, F

M. Tushev, F. Ebrahimi, A. Mahmoud, Digital discrimination in sharing economy a requirements engineering perspective, in: 2020 IEEE 28th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), IEEE, 2020, pp. 204–214

2020
[53]

Mitchell, D

A. Mitchell, D. Balasubramaniam, J. Fletcher, Incorporating ethics in software engineering: challenges and opportunities, in: 2022 29th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), IEEE, 2022, pp. 90–98

2022
[54]

review-to-behavior fidelity

X. Zhou, Y. Jin, H. Zhang, S. Li, X. Huang, A map of threats to validity of systematic literature reviews in software engineering, in: 2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), IEEE, 2016, pp. 153–160. Appendix A. Objectives of Primary Studies S01: To analyze users’ real-life experiences and concerns regarding mobile mental health ap...

work page doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25204388(s32 2016