ArticlePeerJ2023
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Best-Practice Guided Digital Mental Health Interventions for Youth and Young Adults with Emerging Symptoms: Part I. A Systematic Review of Socioemotional Outcomes and Recommendations.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2024Pooled it
- The Impact of User Engagement With Exposure Components on Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in an mHealth Mobile App: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Trial
- Five years of app evaluation: Insights from a framework in practice - a systematic review on the m-health index and navigation database.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- A complementary medicine student-led telehealth clinic: evaluating learning & teaching perceptions.BMC research notes · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.