MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403841910 · doi:10.1016/j.chipro.2024.100075

The use of technology and mobile health apps in child maltreatment interventions: Perspectives of TF-CBT therapists and SafeCare providers

2024· article· en· W4403841910 on OpenAlexafffund
Manderley Recinos, Kathryn O’Hara, Ashwini Tiwari, Daniel J. Whitaker, Christine Wekerle, Shannon Self‐Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Protection and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersAugusta UniversityMcMaster UniversityGeorgia State UniversityColumbia Basin Trust
KeywordsPsychological interventionMobile appsPsychologyInternet privacyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has demonstrated positive effects of using technology as an augmentation to evidence-based youth mental health treatment and parenting programs, however, limited research has examined the use of technology in evidence-based child maltreatment (CM) prevention and treatment. The purpose of this paper is twofold: 1) to understand the application of technology and mobile health apps in CM prevention and treatment programs and 2) examine the acceptability of CM programs with an evidence-informed app, JoyPop™, developed to promote resilience through emotion regulation. Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) therapists (N = 12) and SafeCare© providers (N = 12) were recruited and participated in virtual semi-structured interviews. Participants tested the JoyPop™ app over one week and were interviewed to assess their perspectives about and experiences using technology and mobile health apps in practice (aim 1) and the potential use of JoyPop™ as a program augmentation (aim 2). Data collection and analysis was guided by qualitative descriptive analysis. Participants reported that technology and apps supporting positive coping strategies, including JoyPop™, are relevant to the goals of CM programs and can be used enhance client engagement and skill uptake. Participants noted that JoyPop™'s features more strongly align with the components of TF-CBT than Safecare. Limitations of technology use in practice are discussed. Supplementing CM programs with technology and mobile health apps may be used to bolster client engagement and positive outcomes. Future research is needed to address the efficacy and client acceptance of technology and app usage in practice. • Technology and mobile health apps are a promising supplementation to support CM prevention and treatment program goals for parents and youth. • Providers of evidence-based programs support the use of technology and mobile health apps to increase client engagement and reduce caregiver stress. • The JoyPop™ app, specifically, offers features that align well with programmatic components of the evidence-based intervention Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. • Future research with program consumers is warranted to guide the successful integration of tecnology in CM interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Protection and PracticeSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207