Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32190614›Full record

ReviewmHealth2020

Mar Rus-Calafell, Silvia Schneider

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in mHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mar Rus-CalafellClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Silvia SchneiderClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Ruhr University Bochum · DEWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Access to psychological interventions during early stages of psychosis is essential for ameliorating outcomes and improving prognosis. However, reaching and engaging individuals at these stages of the illness can be very challenging for early intervention teams. Recent digital technological advances have emerged to overcome some of these challenges and to improve access to psychological interventions. The aim of the present literature review is to summarise main findings of relevant studies published during the last 10 years on the utilization of digital technologies (i.e., virtual reality, smartphone technology and web-based interventions) to enhance psychological treatment outcomes in early psychosis. A literature search from January 2009 to June 2019 was performed to identify relevant papers. Of 1,502 studies identified, nine met inclusion criteria for the review and only five presented results from finalised trials. Overall, these studies showed positive feasibility and acceptability results, along with preliminary evidence of improved therapy outcomes. The present review offers a state-of-the-art summary of the main features of these user-centered digital interventions for early stages of psychosis and a critical discussion about their future implementation in mental health services.

Indexed as

digital interventionEarly psychosismHealthmobile apponlinevirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID32190614
PMCPMC7063271
OpenAlexW2984064138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.