Cited by 495Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Review and evaluation of mindfulness-based iPhone apps

Open access
Mani, Madhavan, Kavanagh, David J, Hides, Leanne, Stoyanov, Stoyan R·2015·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence for the positive impact of mindfulness on wellbeing. Mindfulness-based mobile apps may have potential as an alternative delivery medium for training. While there are hundreds of such apps, there is little information on their quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of mindfulness-based iPhone mobile apps and to evaluate their quality using a recently-developed expert rating scale, the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). It also aimed to describe features of selected high-quality mindfulness apps. METHODS: A search for "mindfulness" was conducted in iTunes and Google Apps Marketplace. Apps that provided mindfulness training and education were included. Those containing only reminders, timers or guided meditation tracks were excluded. An expert rater reviewed and rated app quality using the MARS engagement, functionality, visual aesthetics, information quality and subjective quality subscales. A second rater provided MARS ratings on 30% of the apps for inter-rater reliability purposes. RESULTS: The "mindfulness" search identified 700 apps. However, 94 were duplicates, 6 were not accessible and 40 were not in English. Of the remaining 560, 23 apps met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. The median MARS score was 3.2 (out of 5.0), which exceeded the minimum acceptable score (3.0). The Headspace app had the highest average score (4.0), followed by Smiling Mind (3.7), iMindfulness (3.5) and Mindfulness Daily (3.5). There was a high level of inter-rater reliability between the two MARS raters. CONCLUSIONS: Though many apps claim to be mindfulness-related, most were guided meditation apps, timers, or reminders. Very few had high ratings on the MARS subscales of visual aesthetics, engagement, functionality or information quality. Little evidence is available on the efficacy of the apps in developing mindfulness.

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/mhealth.4328

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Smartphone-based meditation interventions have almost exclusively focused on mindfulness training.

    “Smartphone-based meditation interventions have almost exclusively focused on mindfulness training [30,62], although several studies have investigated internet-based interventions that include connection-related practices [63-65].”

    From Testing the efficacy of a multicomponent, self-guided, smartphone-based meditation app: Three-armed randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Results (Features of High-Quality Mindfulness Apps; page unavailable) describe mindfulness-training apps that include guided meditation, supporting the existence of smartphone-based meditation interventions focused on mindfulness. But the review selected mindfulness apps and did not assess smartphone meditation interventions generally, so it cannot establish that they have almost exclusively focused on mindfulness training. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • At study commencement, Headspace held the highest Mobile Application Rating Scale rating of all available mindfulness apps.

    “First, at the commencement of the study it held the highest Mobile Application Rating Scale42 rating of all available mindfulness apps.26”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mani, M., Kavanagh, D. J., Hides, L., & Stoyanov, S. R.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Mani, Madhavan
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2015-08-19
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
e82
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1748592323
Cited by
495
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 1
FWCI
45.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
mindfulness, mobile application, iOS app, app quality, Mobile App Rating Scale, expert ratings, guided meditation, headspace, inter-rater reliability, digital mental health interventions

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