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
Bibliographic record
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).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".