ArticleCommunity mental health journal2025
Supporting the Individualized Use of Digital Tools in Community Mental Health: The Technology Specialist Pilot Study.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of the technology specialist intervention, which assists clients in achieving mental health recovery and well-being goals via existing digital tools in a real-world community mental health setting. Thirteen adult clients with serious mental illness and their providers completed baseline, 3-, and 6-month assessments, including goal setting, self-efficacy, activation, and acceptability measures, along with weekly ecological momentary assessments. Clients selected goals and corresponding tools, used the tools steadily, and showed improvement in activation and self-efficacy. Most participating clients (82%, n = 9) and providers (80%, n = 8) found the intervention acceptable. These preliminary findings show that the technology specialist intervention is promising and warrants further testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39779602What 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.