eHealth in the management of PTSD in children and adolescents: a scoping review

BackgroundPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents poses a significant public health challenge, particularly in settings with limited access to traditional mental health services. eHealth technologies are increasingly used to manage pediatric PTSD; however, evidence remains fragmented and unsynthesized.AimTo comprehensively map the application of eHealth technologies in the management of PTSD among children and adolescents, with a focus on technology modalities, target populations, implementation settings, content elements, outcomes, feasibility, and acceptability. This review also aimed to identify current evidence gaps and highlight priorities for future research.Study designFollowing the Arksey and O’Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, seven databases were searched up to November 2025. Eligible studies involved eHealth tools targeting pediatric PTSD and included quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).ResultsA total of 26 studies published between 2010 and 2025 were included. eHealth modalities encompassed websites, mobile applications, digital games, telemedicine, virtual reality, and wearable sensors, covering the full management continuum from training, assessment, prediction, prevention, intervention, to monitoring. Most studies focused on school-aged children and adolescents, with limited attention to preschoolers or vulnerable populations. Non-randomized studies generally reported short-term PTSD symptom improvements, whereas randomized controlled trials yielded inconsistent results, with limited long-term follow-up data. Overall, feasibility and acceptability were high; however, challenges included distractions in home environments, technical issues, privacy concerns, and variable adherence.ConclusioneHealth demonstrates broad applicability and feasibility in pediatric PTSD management, yet evidence for clinical efficacy remains insufficient. The field is transitioning from “technology validation” toward “efficacy evaluation and system integration.” Future research should prioritize rigorous randomized controlled trials, extended follow-ups, culturally and developmentally appropriate designs, cost-effectiveness analyses, and deeper integration of eHealth into clinical care pathways. Policy support is essential to ensure sustainable implementation, especially in resource-limited settings.