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
{"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 , 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.
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.