ArticleAustralian journal of psychology2024
Integration of a smartphone app with posttraumatic stress disorder treatment for frontline workers: a pilot study.
Article in Australian journal of psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is hindered by limited uptake, early drop-out and non-response. This pilot study aimed to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of a mobile app as part of a blended approach to treating frontline workers experiencing PTSD. Method: A single-group pre-post study was conducted with 10 adult frontline workers (firefighters, police, correctional workers) receiving trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy for PTSD. Participants used an app (Support Base) designed to consolidate session content and encourage independent skills practice. At post-treatment, feasibility was assessed via app usage data and participant feedback, usability via the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire, and acceptability via items from the Mobile Application Rating Scale: user version. Results: Usability ratings were above average and the app received an overall mean rating of 3.4/5. Despite generally positive attitudes towards using technology in therapy, participants had low levels of confidence/experience with wellbeing apps and almost half preferred using the standard treatment workbook. Clinicians highlighted a range of client barriers to app use, including difficulties in clinician/client collaboration. Overall, there was significant pre- to post-treatment improvement in clinical measures of PTSD and depression, but this change cannot be tied to app use. Conclusions: Although Support Base was viewed by participants as usable and acceptable, there were feasibility issues which must be further considered in delivering this form of care. Due to the uncontrolled study design, any additive effects of the app beyond standard clinical treatment could not be assessed. The development of a more integrated blended care model is a potential avenue for future research.
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.