Efficacy of app-based mobile health interventions for stress management: A systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported, physiological, and neuroendocrine stress-related outcomes

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102515
Vasile Sîrbu , Oana Alexandra David
{"title":"Efficacy of app-based mobile health interventions for stress management: A systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported, physiological, and neuroendocrine stress-related outcomes","authors":"Vasile Sîrbu ,&nbsp;Oana Alexandra David","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Stress is a significant mental health concern for the general population, highlighting the need for effective and scalable solutions, such as mobile health (mHealth) app interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of mHealth apps designed primarily to reduce stress and distress in non-clinical and subclinical populations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted up to August 2024, including studies that measured both self-reported and physiological stress outcomes. 80 studies were analyzed. A small but significant effect size (<em>g</em> = 0.33) was found for self-reported stress outcomes, with studies that used specific active controls, operated in naturalistic contexts, and had a low risk of bias showing significantly lower effect sizes. A similarly small effect size was observed for physiological outcomes (<em>g</em> = 0.24). Notably, studies that employed muscle and breathing relaxation, meditation strategies, personalized guidance, experimental usage settings, and measured acute stress responses demonstrated significantly higher effect sizes. Further analysis of specific physiological systems revealed small effect sizes for autonomic (<em>g</em> = 0.32) and cardiac outcomes (<em>g</em> = 0.36). The significant effects observed across both psychological and physiological outcomes support the efficacy and potential of mHealth apps for the self-management of stress responses in the broader population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"114 ","pages":"Article 102515"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824001363","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

Stress is a significant mental health concern for the general population, highlighting the need for effective and scalable solutions, such as mobile health (mHealth) app interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of mHealth apps designed primarily to reduce stress and distress in non-clinical and subclinical populations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted up to August 2024, including studies that measured both self-reported and physiological stress outcomes. 80 studies were analyzed. A small but significant effect size (g = 0.33) was found for self-reported stress outcomes, with studies that used specific active controls, operated in naturalistic contexts, and had a low risk of bias showing significantly lower effect sizes. A similarly small effect size was observed for physiological outcomes (g = 0.24). Notably, studies that employed muscle and breathing relaxation, meditation strategies, personalized guidance, experimental usage settings, and measured acute stress responses demonstrated significantly higher effect sizes. Further analysis of specific physiological systems revealed small effect sizes for autonomic (g = 0.32) and cardiac outcomes (g = 0.36). The significant effects observed across both psychological and physiological outcomes support the efficacy and potential of mHealth apps for the self-management of stress responses in the broader population.
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
基于应用程序的移动健康干预对压力管理的功效:对自我报告、生理和神经内分泌压力相关结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
压力是普通人群关注的一个重要心理健康问题,因此需要有效且可扩展的解决方案,如移动医疗(mHealth)应用干预。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在研究移动医疗应用程序的效果,这些应用程序主要用于减轻非临床和亚临床人群的压力和痛苦。我们对截至 2024 年 8 月的文献进行了全面检索,包括测量自我报告和生理压力结果的研究。共分析了 80 项研究。研究发现,自我报告的压力结果的效应大小(g = 0.33)较小,但具有显著性,使用特定主动对照、在自然环境中进行操作、偏倚风险较低的研究显示的效应大小明显较低。生理结果的效应大小同样较小(g = 0.24)。值得注意的是,采用肌肉和呼吸放松、冥想策略、个性化指导、实验性使用设置以及测量急性应激反应的研究显示出明显较高的效应量。对特定生理系统的进一步分析表明,自律神经系统(g = 0.32)和心脏系统(g = 0.36)的效果较小。在心理和生理结果中观察到的显着效应支持了移动医疗应用程序在更广泛人群中对压力反应进行自我管理的功效和潜力。
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
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
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