Feasibility and acceptability of remote technologies for the treatment of trauma- and stressor-related disorders in adults: mixed-methods systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trauma- and stressor-related disorders (TSRD) are debilitating mental health conditions. Given the barriers to traditional services, remote and online technologies are increasingly used in treating TSRD. AIMS: This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to identify remote technologies and assessed their feasibility and acceptability in treating adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), acute stress disorder and adjustment disorder (AjD). METHOD: The databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were screened to identify studies investigating the feasibility and acceptability of remote interventions for PTSD, acute stress disorder and AjD in adults. Studies that obtained poor-quality ratings on critical appraisal tools were excluded. Results were synthesised using a narrative review approach. RESULTS: = 1, 1.35%). Findings from the review showed higher feasibility and acceptability for interventions with an interactive clinician-patient component. Among self-directed interventions, only two applications and eight online interventions provided a clinician component. Most studies targeted PTSD, with few targeting other diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations related to remote interventions for TSRDs should be broadened to include AjD and other underrepresented diagnoses, and tailored to individual patients' profiles, including their ability to sustain engagement and clinical needs, using a stepped-care approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".