Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206212›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2025

Developing a qualitative and quantitative ambulatory assessment-based feedback system within cognitive behavioural interventions for people with persecutory beliefs.

Laura F Bringmann, Eva Tolmeijer, Maarten Piot, Merijn Mestdagh, Stijn Verdonck, Gert Stulp, Felicity Waite, Louise Isham, Anton P B Staring, Daniel Freeman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

11 authors.

Laura F BringmannDepartment of Psychometrics and Statistics, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Eva TolmeijerDepartment of Clinical Psychology, VU University and Amsterdam Public Health Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Maarten PiotFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Merijn MestdaghFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Stijn VerdonckFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Gert StulpDepartment of Sociology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Felicity WaiteDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Louise IshamDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Anton P B StaringEarly Psychosis Department, Altrecht Psychiatric Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Daniel FreemanDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
David van den BergDepartment of Clinical Psychology, VU University and Amsterdam Public Health Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although the application of self-monitoring (ambulatory assessment) and visual feedback in psychological interventions has yielded promising results, there are currently no reports on using self-monitoring and feedback during a complete therapy. The online m-Path platform provides a tailorable framework for integrating self-monitoring and visual feedback within different psychological interventions. Methods: Therapy-specific questionnaires and visual feedback were developed within the online m-Path platform as part of the Feeling Safe-NL trial (registration number: ISRCTN25766661) for regular CBT for psychosis (CBTp) and the Feeling Safe Programme combined with peer counselling (the Feeling Safe-NL Programme). The design process involved people with lived experience, psychologists, peer counsellors, researchers, and software developers. The design principles included that the system should be 1) easy to use, 2) suitable for use during a six-month therapy, 3) focussed on positive and goal-aligned outcomes, 4) understandable by patients and professionals, and 5) informing, guiding, and promoting therapy. Design principles were evaluated using compliance data and a patient questionnaire. Results: The system was used by 21 patients, of which nine completed the questionnaires for the full therapy period, 168 days on average. Usability data from patients revealed that the system was easy to use, well-explained, and suitable for use over six months of therapy. The patients also reported that the questions overall positively affected their emotions and that the feedback was insightful. Conclusion: The results support the successful application of the design principles to promote the integration of the self-monitoring and visual feedback system within specific CBTp interventions.

Indexed as

Ambulatory assessmentCognitive behaviour therapyESMGraphical feedbackPersecutory delusionsPsychosis

Identifiers

PMID40206212
PMCPMC11979477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.