ArticleDigital health
Expert review of child and caregiver critiques of a therapeutic guided imagery therapy mobile application targeting disorders of gut-brain interaction in children.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: A guided imagery therapy mobile application (GIT App) is a novel platform for treating children with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). Previous feedback from child/caregiver dyads suggested modifications for our App prototype. However, their feedback had the potential to affect the intervention's efficacy. Thus, we aimed to have their critiques vetted by relevant experts prior to further App refinement. Objective: Compare expert reviews of the GIT App with end-users' (i.e., child/caregiver dyads') feedback. Methods: This mixed-methods study with experts included a hands-on App evaluation, a survey assessing usability, and focus groups comparing their perspectives with those previously provided by end-users. Results: Eight medical and technology experts were enrolled. Their average usability survey score of the GIT App was 69.0 ± 27.7, which was marginally above the 50th percentile. While the expert and end-user usability assessments were generally favorable, both groups agreed that the App's reminder notification feature location was not intuitive, detracting from its usability. Experts agreed with end-users that the App's aesthetics were acceptable and suggested increasing icon and font sizes. Like the end-users, the experts did not achieve consensus regarding the ideal session length or inclusion of background sounds and screen animations. Lastly, the experts agreed with end-users that gamification techniques (e.g., gift cards and virtual badges) would promote user engagement. Conclusion: An expert review of our therapeutic App revealed findings consistent with end-users and provided insight for modifying the interface and GIT sessions. Based on this experience, we recommend expert vetting of end-user suggestions as a routine checkpoint when developing therapeutic Apps.
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.