Cited by 123Digital Mental Health InterventionsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Efficacy and Moderation of Mobile App–Based Programs for Mindfulness-Based Training, Self-Compassion Training, and Cognitive Behavioral Psychoeducation on Mental Health: Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial

Open access
Mak, Winnie WS, Tong, Alan CY, Yip, Sindy YC, Lui, Wacy WS, Chio, Floria HN, Chan, Amy TY, Wong, Celia CY·2018·JMIR Mental Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions, self-compassion training, and cognitive behavioral therapy have garnered much evidence in its salutary effects on mental health. With increasing application of smartphone and mobile technology on health promotion, this study investigated the efficacy and possible moderators of mindfulness, self-compassion, and cognitive behavioral psychoeducation training mobile apps in the improvement of mental health. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of 3 mobile app–based programs: mindfulness-based program, self-compassion program, and cognitive behavioral psychoeducation program in improving mental well-being and reducing psychological distress. Changes in mindful awareness and self-compassion were also assessed. To further delineate the suitability of each program for different types of individuals, individual difference variables (ie, discomfort with emotions and tolerance for ambiguity) were explored for potential moderation. Methods: This study was a 3-arm, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial examining the efficacy of mindfulness-based program, self-compassion program, and cognitive behavioral psychoeducation. Participants were randomized into either 1 of the 3 conditions. Throughout the 4-week, 28-session program, participants spent 10-15 min daily reviewing the course content and practicing various related exercises. At preprogram, postprogram, and 3-month follow-up, participants also completed Web-based measures of mental well-being, psychological distress, mindful-awareness, and self-compassion as well as the proposed moderators. Results: Among the 2161 study participants, 508 and 349 completed the post- and 3-month follow-up assessment, respectively. All 3 conditions (mindfulness-based program: N=703; cognitive behavioral psychoeducation: N=753; self-compassion program: N=705) were found to be efficacious in improving mental well-being and reducing psychological distress. All conditions enhanced mindful awareness at postprogram. Significant interaction effect was found on self-compassion; cognitive behavioral psychoeducation and self-compassion program, but not mindfulness-based program, significantly enhanced self-compassion at postprogram. No significant differences regarding usage and users’ satisfaction were found among the 3 conditions. None of the proposed moderators were found to be significant. Conclusions: Mindfulness-based, self-compassion, and cognitive behavioral psychoeducation mobile apps were efficacious in improving mental well-being and reducing psychological distress among adults at postprogram and 3-month follow-up. Future app-based psychological training programs should consider gamification and personalization of content or feedback to enhance engagement and mitigate the high attrition rates that are common in app-based health promotion programs. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) ChiCTR-TRC-13003468; http://www.chictr.org.cn/hvshowproject.aspx?id=6220 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/734PlOz50)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/mental.8597

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In one large study of a mindfulness intervention using a mobile app, only 24% of participants completed the intervention.

    “For example, in one large study of a mindfulness intervention using a mobile app, only 24% of participants completed the intervention (Mak et al., 2018).”

    From Emergency department nurses' experiences of a mindfulness training intervention: A phenomenological exploration (2023) · cites this paper as Mak et al., 2018

    The Discussion (Limitations and Future Directions; page unavailable) reports 76.5% attrition at postprogram, leaving about 24% retained. But the Methods (Program Evaluation Outcome; page unavailable) distinguish completing a postprogram assessment from using the intervention sessions, and the attrition figure covers all three app programs rather than the mindfulness program alone. The paper therefore does not establish that only 24% completed the mindfulness intervention. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • RCTs primarily examining constructive or deconstructive practices are rare.

    “RCTs primarily examining constructive or deconstructive practices are rare (with some promising exceptions) [66,67].”

    From Testing the efficacy of a multicomponent, self-guided, smartphone-based meditation app: Three-armed randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Methods (Trial Design; page unavailable) describe this paper as an RCT that includes self-compassion training, so it supports the citation as a promising exception. The Discussion (Principal Findings—Efficacy and Application; page unavailable) calls rigorous RCTs of mobile mindfulness and self-compassion apps few, but does not establish that RCTs of constructive or deconstructive practices generally are rare. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]comScore 2017-07-14 comScore Introduces Mobile Metrix 2.0, Revealing that Social Media Brands Experience Heavy Engagement on Smartphones http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2012/5/Introducing-Mobile-Metrix-2-Insight-into-Mobile-Behavior?cs_edgescape_cc=HK

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mak, W. W., Tong, A. C., Yip, S. Y., Lui, W. W., Chio, F. H., Chan, A. T., & Wong, C. C.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Hospital Authority (HK)
  • Hong Kong Shue Yan University (CN)
  • University of Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Mak, Winnie WS
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2018-10-11
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
e60
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2887240541
Cited by
123
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8
FWCI
13.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Health and Medical Research Fund (11121081)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
mobile application, mindfulness training, self-compassion training, mental health, psychological distress, psychological well-being, mindful awareness, self-compassion, moderators, emotional discomfort, ambiguity tolerance, digital mental health interventions, non-inferiority, adults

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review