SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
How do people living with psychotic disorders access and use information and communication technology: a scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Relational ontologies of AI and the technoethics of social isolation in psychosis.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Community participation and social connection are important in the recovery process for people living with psychotic disorders. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) can play an important role in recovery by supporting community participation and social connection, but little is known about patterns of use or impact of this use among people living with psychotic disorders. There is a need to synthesize this interdisciplinary literature to establish guidelines for practice. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to answer the primary question; "What has been written about how people living with psychotic disorders access or use ICT for social connection and community participation?". Sub-questions include: (1) "What are barriers and facilitators to using ICT for people living with psychotic disorders?" and (2) "What are risks and benefits to using ICT for people living with psychotic disorders?". We searched six interdisciplinary databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies for this scoping review. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and the first author reviewed all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria, extracting relevant data pertaining to the research question, with the second author reviewing for consensus. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to capture key trends in existing literature related to the research question. Results: Nineteen studies were included in this analysis. Findings were categorized into four key areas: 1) differences and similarities in ICT use between participants with psychotic disorders and other populations; 2) moderators of ICT use and access; 3) potential benefits of ICT use and access; and 4) potential risks of ICT. Conclusions: The results of this review suggest that ICT could be an important and influential tool for participants living with psychotic disorders, despite the existence of significant risks. People living with psychotic disorders are at risk of being left behind the general population in terms of access to technology because of the costs associated with many devices and lack of access to digital literacy education and support for their use; this is an issue of equity and justice. It is essential that future practice and research focus upon how to include this population equitably in this critical occupation through direct intervention. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/, identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/YUQXD.
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.