Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37187512›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2023

Amanda Ting, Craig McLachlan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Amanda TingCentre for Healthy Futures, Torrens University Australia, Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia.
Craig McLachlanCentre for Healthy Futures, Torrens University Australia, Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia.
Torrens University Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Psychological trauma is prevalent in developed countries, with prevalence rates and treatment needs exceeding health system capacity. As telemedicine and out-of-patient care are promoted, there has been an expansion of digital apps to compliment therapeutic stages in psychological trauma. To date there are no reviews that have compared these apps and their clinical utility. This study aims to identify the availability of trauma- and stressor-related mhealth apps, assess their functionality, and review their therapeutic abilities. Methodology: The authors conducted a systematic search using an iPhone 13 Pro in the Australian IOS App Store to extract trauma- and stressor-related apps that resulted from the search criteria. A cross-adaptation of the Results: A total of 234 apps resulting from the search strategy were screened, with 81 apps that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of apps were marketed to 4+ to 17+ years of age, categorised as 'health and fitness', with the highest target markets observed for adolescents, children, parents, clinicians, and clients. A total of 43 apps (53.1%) contained a trauma-informed specified section, and 37 (45.7%) incorporated a section useful to support trauma-related symptoms. A significant number of apps there was an absence of therapeutic utility (in 32 apps (39.5%)). Most apps were supporting post-traumatic stress disorder-informed, cognitive behavioural therapy and eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing. Provision of psychoeducation, courses, guided sessions, trainings, self-reflection/journaling, symptom management and progress tracking were highly present. Conclusions: Trauma-informed mobile apps are available in the App Store, expanding in its target market reach and usability, with an increase of creative psychotherapies being introduced alongside conventional modalities. However, based on the app descriptors, the scarcity of evidenced-based testimonials and therapeutic applicability remains questionable for clinical validity. Although mhealth tools are marketed as trauma-related, current available apps employ a multifunctional approach to general psychological symptomatology, through to associated comorbid conditions and emphasizes on passive activity. For higher uptake on user engagement, clinical application and validity, trauma-apps require curated specification to fulfil its role as complimentary psychological treatment.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyMobile ApplicationsAdolescentAustraliaChildHumansSelf CareSmartphoneDigital healthmHealthMobile applicationsmTraumaTrauma-informed

Identifiers

PMID37187512
PMCPMC10178213
OpenAlexW4375949864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.