Cited by 92Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMigration, Health and TraumaMigration and Exile Studies

A Self-Help App for Syrian Refugees With Posttraumatic Stress (Sanadak): Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Röhr, Susanne, Jung, Franziska U, Pabst, Alexander, Grochtdreis, Thomas, Dams, Judith, Nagl, Michaela, Renner, Anna, Hoffmann, Rahel +3 more·2021·JMIR mhealth and uhealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Syrian refugees residing in Germany often develop posttraumatic stress as a result of the Syrian civil war, their escape, and postmigration stressors. At the same time, there is a lack of adequate treatment options. The smartphone-based app Sanadak was developed to provide cognitive behavioral therapy-based self-help in the Arabic language for Syrian refugees with posttraumatic stress. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the app. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, eligible individuals were randomly allocated to the intervention group (IG; app use) or control group (CG; psychoeducational reading material). Data were collected during structured face-to-face interviews at 3 assessments (preintervention/baseline, postintervention/after 4 weeks, follow-up/after 4 months). Using adjusted mixed-effects linear regression models, changes in posttraumatic stress and secondary outcomes were investigated as intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated based on adjusted mean total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves using the net benefit approach. RESULTS: Of 170 screened individuals (aged 18 to 65 years), 133 were eligible and randomized to the IG (n=65) and CG (n=68). Although there was a pre-post reduction in posttraumatic stress, ITT showed no significant differences between the IG and CG after 4 weeks (Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5, Diff -0.90, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.47; P=.52) and after 4 months (Diff -0.39, 95% CI -3.24 to 2.46; P=.79). The same was true for PP. Regarding secondary outcomes, ITT indicated a treatment effect for self-stigma: after 4 weeks (Self-Stigma of Mental Illness Scale/SSMIS-stereotype agreement: d=0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.25; stereotype application: d=0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99) and after 4 months (d=0.52, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.92; d=0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90), the IG showed significantly lower values in self-stigma than the CG. ITT showed no significant group differences in total costs and QALYs. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 81% for a willingness-to-pay of €0 per additional QALY but decreased with increasing willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSIONS: Sanadak was not more effective in reducing mild to moderate posttraumatic stress in Syrian refugees than the control condition nor was it likely to be cost-effective. Therefore, Sanadak is not suitable as a standalone treatment. However, as the app usability was very good, no harms detected, and stigma significantly reduced, Sanadak has potential as a bridging aid within a stepped and collaborative care approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00013782; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013782. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2110-y.

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 · 10.2196/24807

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Röhr, S., Jung, F. U., Pabst, A., Grochtdreis, T., Dams, J., Nagl, M., Renner, A., Hoffmann, R., König, H.-H., Kersting, A., & Riedel-Heller, S. G.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • University Hospital Leipzig (DE)
Corresponding author
Röhr, Susanne
Venue
JMIR mhealth and uhealth
Published
2021-01-13
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e24807
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3120594701
Cited by
92
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 6
FWCI
10.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration and Exile Studies
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, Syrian refugees, mobile health apps, cognitive behavioral therapy, self-help intervention, self-stigma, cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, refugee mental health, psychoeducation, Germany, medication adherence, quality of life, anxiety, sleep disorders, post-traumatic stress
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Germany, Humans, Middle Aged, Refugees, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Syria, Young Adult, 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