ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Feasibility of a Mental Health App Intervention for Emergency Service Workers and Volunteers: Single-Arm Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Emergency service workers are at an elevated risk for stressor-related mental health (MH) issues, such as anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Barriers to help-seeking are widespread across this sector, necessitating interventions tailored to the unique needs of this population. Build Back Better is a smartphone-based intervention designed to provide evidence-based strategies for the prevention of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder among emergency service workers. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the usability, acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of the Build Back Better app among emergency service workers. Methods: A single-group (N=67), 1-month pilot study assessing the impact of the Build Back Better app on MH outcomes, including general distress, anxiety, depression, and traumatic stress coping, was undertaken with emergency service workers. Participants completed baseline and 1-month follow-up assessments using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder, World Health Organization Well-Being Index, and the Trauma Coping Self-Efficacy Scale. The app's usability and acceptability were also evaluated through participant feedback and usage data. Results: Of the 71 participants enrolled, 67 completed the baseline assessment and downloaded the app, with 33 participants providing follow-up data. The mean age of participants was 44.73 (SD 11.4) years, and 64% (n=43) were male. The majority of respondents rated the app quality as very high (n=27, 79%), felt that the app was easy to use (n=20, 61%), easily understood (n=18, 55%), improved their mental fitness (n=27, 80%), and would recommend the app to others (n=20, 61%). Encouraging trends toward improvement were found across symptom and well-being outcomes; however, these trends were not significant: general distress (t32=0.65, P=.52), depression (t32=0.75, P=.46), anxiety (t32=1.08, P=.29), or traumatic stress coping (t32=-0.27, P=.79), with effect sizes ≤0.2, likely due to the small sample size. Conclusions: The Build Back Better app demonstrated satisfactory levels of usability and acceptability. While the pilot study showed encouraging trends toward improved MH, further research with a larger sample size is needed to determine its efficacy. Participants furthermore suggested improvements in app navigation and content clarity, emphasizing the need for a more intuitive user experience. Given the positive feedback and improvement in MH outcomes, a larger-scale efficacy trial is warranted to further assess the app's potential for MH support in this high-risk population.
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.