Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34785541›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2021

Nadeem Gire, Neil Caton, Mick McKeown, Naeem Mohmed, Joy Duxbury, James Kelly, Miv Riley, Peter J Taylor, Christopher D J Taylor, Farooq Naeem and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02439619 (TechCare), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT02439619 naunknown statusnot on this map

TechCare: Mobile-AssessmenT and ThErapy for PsyCHosis: An Intervention for Clients Within the EArly InteRvention SErvice

TypeinterventionalSponsorLancashire Care NHS Foundation TrustRan2014 to 2017Enrolled16ConditionsFeasibility StudiesArmsTechCare
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Nadeem GireResearch, Lancashire Care NHS Trust, Preston, UK ngire1@uclan.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4130-6626
Neil CatonResearch, Lancashire Care NHS Trust, Preston, UK.
Mick McKeownSchool of Nursing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0235-1923
Naeem MohmedResearch and Development, Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, Blackburn, UK.
Joy DuxburyFaculty of Health, Psychology & Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
James KellyFaculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Miv RileyResearch, Lancashire Care NHS Trust, Preston, UK.
Peter J TaylorPsychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester School of Psychological Sciences, Manchester, UK.
Christopher D J TaylorSecondary Care Psychological Therapies Service, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Ashton-under-Lyne, UK.
Farooq NaeemPsychiatry, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Imran Bashir ChaudhryPsychiatry, Ziauddin University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Nusrat HusainResearch, Lancashire Care NHS Trust, Preston, UK.
Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Lancashire · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBLancaster University · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBManchester Metropolitan University · GBPennine Care NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the project was to examine the acceptability and feasibility of a mobile phone application-based intervention 'TechCare', for individuals with psychosis in the North West of England. The main objectives were to determine whether appropriate individuals could be identified and recruited to the study and whether the TechCare App would be an acceptable intervention for individuals with psychosis.

methodsThis was a mixed methods feasibility study, consisting of a test-run and feasibility evaluation of the TechCare App intervention.

settingEarly Intervention Services (EIS) for psychosis, within an NHS Trust in the North West of England.

participantsSixteen participants (test-run n=4, feasibility study n=12) aged between 18 and 65 years recruited from the East, Central and North Lancashire EIS.

interventionA 6-week intervention, with the TechCare App assessing participants' symptoms and responses in real-time and providing a personalised-guided self-help-based psychological intervention based on the principles of Cognitive Behaviorual Therapy (CBT).

resultsA total of 83.33% (n=10) of participants completed the 6-week feasibility study, with 70% of completers achieving the set compliance threshold of ≥33% engagement with the TechCare App system. Analysis of the qualitative data suggested that participants held the view that the TechCare was both an acceptable and feasible means of delivering interventions in real-time.

conclusionInnovative digital clinical technologies, such as the TechCare App, have the potential to increase access to psychological interventions, reduce health inequality and promote self-management with a real-time intervention, through enabling access to mental health resources in a stigma-free, evidence-based and time-independent manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02439619.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsPsychotic DisordersSelf-ManagementAdolescentAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesHealth Status DisparitiesHumansMiddle AgedYoung Adultmental healthschizophrenia & psychotic disorderstelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34785541
PMCPMC8596054
OpenAlexW3201013850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.