Efficacy of mental health smartphone apps on stress levels: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2024.2379784
Jake Linardon, Joseph Firth, John Torous, Mariel Messer, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz
{"title":"Efficacy of mental health smartphone apps on stress levels: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Jake Linardon, Joseph Firth, John Torous, Mariel Messer, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2379784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The management of stress has evolved in recent years due to widespread availability of mobile-device applications (apps) and their capacity to deliver psychological interventions. We evaluated the efficacy of mental health apps on stress and sought to identify characteristics associated with effect size estimates. Sixty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Random effects meta-analyses were performed and putative moderators were examined at univariate and multivariate (combinations and interactions) levels. From 78 comparisons, we observed a small but significant pooled effect of apps over control conditions on perceived stress levels (<i>g</i> = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.20, 0.34; <i>I</i><sup>2 </sup>= 68%). This effect weakened after taking into account small-study bias according to the trim-and-fill procedure (<i>g</i> = 0.10; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.19; <i>I</i><sup>2 </sup>= 78%). Delivery of apps with stress monitoring features produced smaller efficacy estimates, although this association interacted with other trial features (small sample size and inactive control group) in multivariate analyses, suggesting that this effect may have been explained by features characteristic of low-quality trials. Mental health apps appear to have small, acute effects on reducing perceived stress. Future research should shift focus towards identifying change mechanisms, longitudinal outcomes, features that facilitate sustained app usage, and tangible pathways to integrating apps into real-world clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2379784","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The management of stress has evolved in recent years due to widespread availability of mobile-device applications (apps) and their capacity to deliver psychological interventions. We evaluated the efficacy of mental health apps on stress and sought to identify characteristics associated with effect size estimates. Sixty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Random effects meta-analyses were performed and putative moderators were examined at univariate and multivariate (combinations and interactions) levels. From 78 comparisons, we observed a small but significant pooled effect of apps over control conditions on perceived stress levels (g = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.20, 0.34; I2 = 68%). This effect weakened after taking into account small-study bias according to the trim-and-fill procedure (g = 0.10; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.19; I2 = 78%). Delivery of apps with stress monitoring features produced smaller efficacy estimates, although this association interacted with other trial features (small sample size and inactive control group) in multivariate analyses, suggesting that this effect may have been explained by features characteristic of low-quality trials. Mental health apps appear to have small, acute effects on reducing perceived stress. Future research should shift focus towards identifying change mechanisms, longitudinal outcomes, features that facilitate sustained app usage, and tangible pathways to integrating apps into real-world clinical settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理健康智能手机应用程序对压力水平的影响:随机对照试验荟萃分析。
近年来,由于移动设备应用程序(Apps)的普及及其提供心理干预的能力,压力管理得到了发展。我们评估了心理健康应用程序对压力的疗效,并试图找出与估计效应大小相关的特征。我们纳入了 69 项随机对照试验(RCT)。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析,并在单变量和多变量(组合和交互作用)水平上研究了可能的调节因素。在 78 项比较中,我们观察到应用程序与对照条件相比,对感知压力水平有微小但显著的集合效应(g = 0.27;95% CI = 0.20,0.34;I2 = 68%)。根据 "修剪-填充 "程序考虑到小规模研究的偏差后,这一效应有所减弱(g = 0.10; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.19; I2 = 78%)。具有压力监测功能的应用程序产生的疗效估计值较小,但在多变量分析中,这种关联与其他试验特征(样本量小和对照组不活跃)相互影响,表明这种效应可能是由低质量试验的特征造成的。心理健康应用程序似乎在减少感知压力方面具有微小的急性效应。未来的研究应将重点转向确定变化机制、纵向结果、有助于持续使用应用程序的特征,以及将应用程序整合到实际临床环境中的具体途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology and diagnosis in burn survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yoga as an intervention for stress: a meta-analysis. Analytical decisions pose moral questions. Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1