Cited by 73Schizophrenia research and treatmentDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Development and Long-Term Acceptability of ExPRESS, a Mobile Phone App to Monitor Basic Symptoms and Early Signs of Psychosis Relapse

Open access
Eisner, Emily, Drake, Richard James, Berry, Natalie, Barrowclough, Christine, Emsley, Richard, Machin, Matthew, Bucci, Sandra·2019·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia relapses are common, have profound, adverse consequences for patients and are costly to health services. Early signs interventions aim to use warning signs of deterioration to prevent full relapse. Such interventions show promise but could be further developed. This study addresses 2 developments: adding basic symptoms to checklists of conventional early signs and using a mobile phone app ExPRESS to aid early signs monitoring. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) design a pool of self-report items assessing basic symptoms (Basic Symptoms Checklist, BSC); (2) develop and beta test a mobile phone app (ExPRESS) for monitoring early signs, basic symptoms, and psychotic symptoms; and (3) evaluate the long-term acceptability of ExPRESS via qualitative feedback from participants in a 6-month feasibility study. METHODS: The BSC items and ExPRESS were developed and then adjusted following feedback from beta testers (n=5) with a schizophrenia diagnosis. Individuals (n=18) experiencing a relapse of schizophrenia within the past year were asked to use ExPRESS for 6 months to answer weekly questions about experiences of early signs, basic symptoms, and psychotic symptoms. At the end of follow-up, face-to-face qualitative interviews (n=16; 2 were uncontactable) explored experiences of using ExPRESS. The topic guide sought participants' views on the following a priori themes regarding app acceptability: item content, layout, and wording; app appearance; length and frequency of assessments; worries about app use; how app use fitted with participants' routines; and the app's extra features. Interview transcripts were analyzed using the framework method, which allows examination of both a priori and a posteriori themes, enabling unanticipated aspects of app use experiences to be explored. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 38 years (range 22-57 years). Responses to a priori topics indicated that long-term use of ExPRESS was acceptable; small changes for future versions of ExPRESS were suggested. A posteriori themes gave further insight into individuals' experiences of using ExPRESS. Some reported finding it more accessible than visits from a clinician, as assessments were more frequent, more anonymous, and did not require the individual to explain their feelings in their own words. Nevertheless, barriers to app use (eg, unfamiliarity with smartphones) were also reported. Despite ExPRESS containing no overtly therapeutic components, some participants found that answering the weekly questions prompted self-reflection, which had therapeutic value for them. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that apps are acceptable for long-term symptom monitoring by individuals with a schizophrenia diagnosis across a wide age range. If the potential benefits are understood, patients are generally willing and motivated to use a weekly symptom-monitoring app; most participants in this study were prepared to do so for more than 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03558529; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03558529 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70qvtRmZY).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/11568

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even if people acknowledged a perceived need for help and were willing to seek help, engagement with a particular intervention was affected by a person's preconceived belief about whether a digital intervention would be effective.

    “However, even if people acknowledged a perceived need for help and were willing to seek help, engagement with a particular intervention was then affected by a person’s preconceived belief about whether a digital intervention would be effective [79,104,110-112].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [79]

    In Results, Stage 3 (page unavailable), participants expressed skepticism about whether the app study would produce useful findings, and the authors say such skepticism might hinder engagement. The Discussion, Principal Findings (page unavailable), also identifies skepticism as a potential barrier. The paper does not establish that preconceived beliefs actually affected engagement, or address the claimed sequence of recognizing a need for help and being willing to seek it. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Depressive symptoms and low mood, as measured by validated scales, have been reported as barriers for people to access and use web-based resources.

    “Depressive symptoms [78] and low mood [79], as measured by validated scales, have been reported as barriers for people to access and use web-based resources.”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [79]

    In Results, Stage 3 (page unavailable), participants reported that low mood sometimes hindered engagement with the ExPRESS mobile app. The barrier was described in qualitative interviews, not established through validated-scale measurements, and the paper studied app use rather than access to web-based resources. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Intervention normalizing people's experiences (e.g., by providing examples of other people with similar experiences) is a facilitating factor.

    “Another facilitating factor was whether the intervention normalized people’s experiences [79,139,157,190,201], for instance, by providing examples of other people with similar experiences.”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [79]

    In Results (Stage 3: 6-Month Feasibility Study and Qualitative Interviews; page not provided), one participant described the app as normalizing and said that knowing others were taking part helped her feel that people shared her experiences. The paper also says this normalization facilitated acceptance, but it does not say the app provided examples of other people with similar experiences or establish normalization as a factor facilitating engagement. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increased insight into users' health could facilitate engagement.

    “Additional positive effects that could facilitate engagement were an increased insight into users’ health [79,84,114,124,134,138-140,158,176,202-205]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 81 · Cited by 73

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [7]Gumley A Schwannauer M Staying Well After Psychosis: A Cognitive Interpersonal Approach to Recovery and Relapse Prevention 2006 Chichester John Wiley and Sons
  2. [54]First MB Spitzer RL Williams JB Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Clinician Version (SCID-CV) 1996 Washington, DC American Psychiatric Press, Inc

Authors
Eisner, E., Drake, R. J., Berry, N., Barrowclough, C., Emsley, R., Machin, M., & Bucci, S.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Eisner, Emily
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2019-03-29
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e11568
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904587264
Cited by
73
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
schizophrenia, psychosis relapse, mobile phone app, Express, symptom monitoring, app acceptability, barriers to app use, self-reflection, digital mental health tools
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotic Disorders, Syndrome, Time Factors, Program Development, Qualitative Research, Secondary Prevention, Self Report, Mobile Applications

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