Scientific Publication Patterns of Mobile Technologies and Apps for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Treatment: Bibliometric Co-Word Analysis (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mobile apps are viewed as a promising opportunity to provide support for patients who have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The development of mobile technologies and apps shows similar trends in PTSD treatment. Therefore, this emerging research field has received substantial attention. Consequently, various research settings are planned for current and further studies. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the scientific patterns of research domains related to mobile apps and other technologies for PTSD treatment in scholarly publications, and to suggest further studies for this emerging research field. METHODS We conducted a bibliometric analysis to identify publication patterns, most important keywords, trends for topicality, and text analysis, along with construction of a word cloud for papers published in the last decade (2010 to 2019). Research questions were formulated based on the relevant literature. In particular, we concentrated on highly ranked sources. Based on the proven bibliometric approach, the data were ultimately retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics). RESULTS A total of 64 studies were found concerning the research domains. The vast majority of the papers were written in the English language (63/64, 98%) with the remaining article (1/64, 2%) written in French. The articles were written by 323 authors/coauthors from 11 different countries, with the United States predominating, followed by England, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Sweden, and Vietnam. The most common publication type was peer-reviewed journal articles (48/64, 75%), followed by reviews (8/64, 13%), meeting abstracts (5/64, 8%), news items (2/64, 3%), and a proceeding (1/64, 2%). There was a mean of 6.4 papers published per year over the study period. There was a 100% increase in the number of publications published from 2016 to 2019 with a mean of 13.33 papers published per year during this latter period. CONCLUSIONS Although the number of papers on mobile technologies for PTSD was quite low in the early period, there has been an overall increase in this research domain in recent years (2016-2019). Overall, these findings indicate that mobile health tools in combination with traditional treatment for mental disorders among veterans increase the efficiency of health interventions, including reducing PTSD symptoms, improving quality of life, conducting intervention evaluation, and monitoring of improvements. Mobile apps and technologies can be used as supportive tools in managing pain, anger, stress, and sleep disturbance. These findings therefore provide a useful overview of the publication trends on research domains that can inform further studies and highlight potential gaps in this field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.152 | 0.212 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".