Cited by 16Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

A Review of Mobile Applications for Facilitating EMDR Treatment of Complex Trauma and Its Comorbidities

Open access
Marotta-Walters, Sylvia A., Jain, Kshipra, DiNardo, Jeffrey, Kaur, Paramjit, Kaligounder, Shobila·2018·Journal of EMDR Practice and Research

Abstract

With the continued advancement in technology, there is a rise in the development and utilization of mobile health applications (mHealth apps) that claim to be using eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) theory and techniques to facilitate the therapeutic process. However, there are concerns regarding the quality of these apps and the safety of clients who may be using them, particularly for those who may present with complex posttraumatic conditions and associated comorbidities. Hence, this study evaluates current EMDR apps to determine their purpose, potential benefits, and risks when used by clients and/or clinicians. Twelve apps were found to be eligible for evaluation and are rated on applicability, validity, accuracy, and usefulness. Currently, our review concludes that none of the EMDR apps are recommended for use by a client. Only 6 of the 12 apps would be recommended for use by a trained clinician as a tool to aid with EMDR treatment, provided the clinician were able to offer a safe environment that could adapt to the selected technology. Risks of using EMDR apps include safety concerns with unregulated use, particularly for clients with complex posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and comorbid conditions, such as dysregulated emotions or cognitions, and concerns regarding cyber security and data privacy. Clinical implications for the use of technology and mHealth apps are discussed, and recommendations for the development of an ideal EMDR app for the future are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1891/1933-3196.12.1.2

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Marotta-Walters et al. evaluated benefits and risks of apps supporting EMDR therapy when used by clients and/or clinicians.

    “For instance, a study of Marotta-Walters et al. was designed to evaluate the bene ts and risks of apps supporting a speci c therapy eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) when used by clients and/or clinicians [70].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marotta-Walters, S. A., Jain, K., DiNardo, J., Kaur, P., & Kaligounder, S.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • George Washington University, Washington, DC
Venue
Journal of EMDR Practice and Research
Published
2018-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
2-15
ISSN
  • 1933-3196 (ISSN-L)
  • 1933-320X
OpenAlex
W2791604460
Cited by
16
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of EMDR Practice and Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
EMDR, mobile health apps, complex trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, comorbidities, app quality, client safety, cybersecurity, data privacy, technology in psychotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review