MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976858807 · doi:10.2196/15648

Characteristics and Usage Patterns Among 12,151 Paid Subscribers of the Calm Meditation App: Cross-Sectional Survey

2019· article· en· W2976858807 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Huberty, Ana‐Maria Vranceanu, Colleen E. Carney, Michael Breus, Michael A. Gordon, Megan Puzia

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeditationmHealthCross-sectional studyMedicineLogistic regressionDemographicsPsychologyGerontologyDemographyPsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Meditation has become increasingly popular due to its health benefits; however, barriers to delivering meditation programs in traditional group-based formats limit the accessibility of these benefits. Smartphone-based meditation may increase the availability of these programs to larger, more diverse audiences; however, research on subscriber characteristics and usage patterns in meditation mobile apps is lacking. Objective This study aimed to describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, and usage patterns of a convenience sample of Calm subscribers and explore the relationship between self-reported app usage and changes in health, stress, and sleep. Methods Participants were 12,151 paying Calm subscribers (response rate=12.08%, 12,151/100,594) who completed an anonymous Web-based survey with 11 quantitative questions related to user engagement, reasons for starting Calm, and changes after using the app. Demographic characteristics, chronic health diagnoses, and sleep difficulties were also assessed. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in app usage. Logistic regression models were used to examine demographic and health characteristics that may predict changes in health, stress, and sleep. Results Respondents were 18-96 years old (mean 48.57 [SD 13.79]), primarily female (79.94%, 8778/10,981), white (81.41%, 8959/11,005), and most reported a chronic health diagnosis (56.86%, 6289/11,061). Mental health diagnoses (41.13%, 4549/11,061) were more common than physical health diagnoses (32.19%, 3560/11,061). Most respondents (76.31%, 8684/11,360) reported difficulties falling or staying asleep. On average, respondents had been using Calm for 11.49 months (SD 10.49), and 60.03% (7281/12,129) used it 5 or more times per week. Meditations (used by 80.02%, 9497/11,841) and Sleep Stories (55.66%, 6591/11,841) were the most popular components. The frequency of using Calm was associated with incremental increases in the likelihood of noticing changes in mental health (χ22=136.8; P<.001), physical health (χ22=102.8; P<.001), stress (χ22=128.1; P<.001), and sleep (χ22=141.4; P<.001). Respondents who had used Calm longer were also more likely to notice changes in mental health (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.06]), physical health (OR 1.01 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.02]), stress (OR 1.04 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.05]), and sleep (OR 1.004 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.01]). Subscribers with sleep difficulties used Calm more frequently (χ82=11.5; P=.003), were more likely to use Sleep Stories (χ12=1590.2; P<.001), and were more likely to notice changes in their physical health (χ12=49.2; P<.001) and sleep (χ12=2391.1; P<.001). Conclusions Results highlight important demographic characteristics and usage patterns among a self-selected sample of Calm subscribers. Mental health concerns and sleep appear to be top reasons for downloading Calm. Sleep Stories and meditations are the most popular app components. The frequency of using Calm was associated with incremental changes in outcomes. Findings support future randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of Calm for health, stress, and sleep. Studies should also explore strategies to attract a more diverse sample of subscribers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207