Cited by 58Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mobile Health: App Investigation and Scoping Literature Review

Open access
Rodriguez-Paras, Carolina, Tippey, Kathryn, Brown, Elaine, Sasangohar, Farzan, Creech, Suzannah, Kum, Hye-Chung, Lawley, Mark, Benzer, Justin K·2017·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent mental health issue among veterans. Access to PTSD treatment is influenced by geographic (ie, travel distance to facilities), temporal (ie, time delay between services), financial (ie, eligibility and cost of services), and cultural (ie, social stigma) barriers. OBJECTIVE: The emergence of mobile health (mHealth) apps has the potential to bridge many of these access gaps by providing remote resources and monitoring that can offer discrete assistance to trauma survivors with PTSD and enhance patient-clinician relationships. In this study, we investigate the current mHealth capabilities relevant to PTSD. METHODS: This study consists of two parts: (1) a review of publicly available PTSD apps designed to determine the availability of PTSD apps, which includes more detailed information about three dominant apps and (2) a scoping literature review performed using a systematic method to determine app usage and efforts toward validation of such mHealth apps. App usage relates to how the end users (eg, clinicians and patients) are interacting with the app, whereas validation is testing performed to ensure the app's purpose and specifications are met. RESULTS: The results suggest that though numerous apps have been developed to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD symptoms, few apps were designed to be integrated with clinical PTSD treatment, and minimal efforts have been made toward enhancing the usability and validation of PTSD apps. CONCLUSIONS: These findings expose the need for studies relating to the human factors evaluation of such tools, with the ultimate goal of increasing access to treatment and widening the app adoption rate for patients with PTSD.

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/mhealth.7318

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Most self-help apps available have not been validated yet.

    “Although, there are plenty of self-help apps available, most of them have not been validated yet [46], and might not meet the specific needs of traumatized Syrian refugees.”

    From HELP@APP: Development and evaluation of a self-help app for traumatized Syrian refugees in Germany- A study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2019) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Discussion (Principal Findings; page not specified) says that a majority of PTSD-related apps had yet to be validated. That supports the concern for trauma-related apps, but the citing sentence extends it to self-help apps generally, which this review does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®), fifth edition 2013 Arlington, VA American Psychiatric Publishing

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodriguez-Paras, C., Tippey, K., Brown, E., Sasangohar, F., Creech, S., Kum, H.-C., Lawley, M., & Benzer, J. K.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • Central Texas Veterans Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
Sasangohar, Farzan
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2017-10-26
Volume
5
Issue
10
Pages
e156
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765733711
Cited by
58
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6
FWCI
0.79
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)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, mobile health apps, veterans, access to mental health care, app usability, app validation, human factors evaluation, app adoption, telemedicine

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