Table 2.

Feasibility and satisfaction with treatment.

Study	Outcome assessment	Ratinga
Brodbeck et al [41]	11 items measuring satisfaction; 4-point scale (1=not at all to 4=very much)	3.36 (0.32)
Dominick et al [38]	4 items measuring satisfaction (usefulness, helpfulness, satisfaction with the intervention, and recommendation to friends; 7-point Likert scale, 1=not at all to 7=extremely); 6 items measuring usability and acceptability (6-point Likert scale, 1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree); open question on possibilities to improve intervention	Satisfaction: satisfied with the intervention, 5.18 (1.47); recommendation, 5.62 (1.52); helpful for understanding grief, 5.15 (1.54); useful for coping with grief, 4.85 (1.35) Acceptability or usability: interesting, 4.88 (0.91); easy to use, 5.21 (0.81); attractive, 5.00 (0.82); liked guidance and structure, 5.21 (0.84); videos believable, 5.03 (0.87); videos add to value of intervention, 5.12 (0.91)
Eisma et al [35]	6 items measuring feasibility (comprehensibility of instructions and homework, feeling understood by the therapist, general feasibility, usefulness of treatment, and satisfaction with treatment), 5-point scale (1=completely disagree to 5=completely agree)	Exposure: comprehensibility of instructions/homework, 4.67 (0.60)/4.67 (0.48); feeling understood by the therapist, 4.36 (0.63); general feasibility, 4.21 (1.05); usefulness of treatment, 4.00 (1.17); satisfaction with treatment, 3.86 (0.95) Behavioral application: comprehensibility of study information/homework assignments, 4.64 (0.51)/4.27 (0.78); feeling understood by therapist, 4.13 (0.94); general feasibility, 3.64 (1.21); usefulness of treatment, 3.64 (1.21); satisfaction with treatment, 3.64 (1.21)
Litz et al [40]	Acceptability or feasibility (PSSUQb; 13-item 7-point scale, 1=strongly agree to 7=strongly disagree); system usefulness: ease, simplicity, efficiency of learning to use the website and using the website; information quality: is the information on the use of the website clear, easy to understand, and effective for helping with completion of the tasks?; protocol evaluation questionnaire: personal relevance and meaningfulness of intervention modules, accessibility of information, and general reactions to the intervention and its web-based format; qualitative feedback on intervention	PSSUQ usefulness subscore, 3.02 (2.16); PSSUQ information quality subscore, 2.95 (2.06) Protocol evaluation questionnaire: content was logical, 7.16 (1.7), best possible value: 9; amount of information: 6% “somewhat too much”, 77.6% “just the right amount”, 16.4% “would have preferred more information”; instruction level: 77.6% “just right”, 20.9% “somewhat too basic”, 1.5% “far too basic”; satisfaction with content: 53.7% learned a moderate amount, 35.8% learned a large amount from the program; interest: 43.3% “extremely interesting”, 53.7% “somewhat interesting”; individual components: >90% consistently rated modules “moderately valuable” to “extremely valuable”; likelihood of recommendation: 7.37 (1.9), best possible value: 9
Wagner et al [36]	4 items measuring treatment experience: contact with therapist (personal, impersonal, or do not know), experience of therapist contact via email (unpleasant, pleasant, or do not know), missing face-to-face contact with therapist (no, yes, or I do not know), and assumed effectiveness of intervention to reduce complaints (no, a little, quite a bit, or very strongly)	Therapist contact via email: 85% (“pleasant”); missing face-to-face-communication (”yes“): 20%; contact with therapist: 83% (”personal“); effectiveness: 45% (”quite a bit“); 10% (”very strongly“)

^aResults reported as mean (SD) or percentage.

^bPSSUQ: Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire.