Background In an oversaturated market of publicly available mobile apps for psychosocial self-care and stress management, health care providers, patients, and consumers interested in mental health–related apps may wonder which, if any, are efficacious. Readily available metrics for consumers include user popularity and media buzz rather than scientific evidence. Objective This systematic review aimed to (1) examine the breadth of therapeutic contents and features of psychosocial wellness and stress management apps available to self-help seekers for public download and (2) determine which of these apps have original research support. Methods First, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available apps on the iPhone App Store (Apple Inc) and Android Google Play (Google LLC) platforms using conventional self-help-seeking search terms related to wellness and stress. The results were limited to English-language apps available for free download. In total, 2 reviewers independently evaluated all apps and discussed the findings to reach 100% consensus regarding inclusion. Second, a literature review was conducted on the included apps to identify supporting studies with original data collection. Results We screened 3287 apps and found 1009 psychosocial wellness and stress management apps. Content varied widely. The most common evidence-based strategy was mindfulness-meditation, followed by positive psychology and goal setting. Most apps were intended to be used as self-help interventions, with only 1.09% (11/1009) involving an electronic therapist and 1.88% (19/1009) designed as a supplement to in-person psychotherapy. Only 4.66% (47/1009) of apps targeted individuals with psychological disorders, and less than 1% of apps (6/1009, 0.59%) targeted individuals with other chronic illnesses. Approximately 2% (21/1009, 2.08%) were supported by original research publications, with a total of 25 efficacy studies and 10 feasibility studies. The Headspace mindfulness app had the most evidence, including 8 efficacy studies. Most other scientifically backed apps were supported by a single feasibility or efficacy study. Conclusions Only 2.08% (21/1009) of publicly available psychosocial wellness and stress management mobile apps discoverable to self-help seekers have published, peer-reviewed evidence of feasibility and/or efficacy. Clinicians and investigators may use these findings to help patients and families navigate the volume of emerging digital health interventions for stress management and wellness.

Background An estimated 12.8% of children and adolescents experience chronic health conditions that lead to poor quality of life, adjustment and coping issues, and concurrent mental health problems. Digital health deployment of psychosocial interventions to support youth with chronic illness has become increasingly popular with the advent of the technological advances in the digital age. Objective Our objectives were to systematically review published efficacy studies of eHealth and mHealth (mobile health) psychosocial interventions for youths with chronic illnesses and review intervention theory and treatment components. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies published from 2008 to 2019 of eHealth and mHealth psychosocial interventions designed for children and adolescents with chronic illnesses in which efficacy outcomes were reported. We excluded studies of interventions for caregivers, healthy youth, disease and medication management, and telehealth interventions that function solely as a platform to connect patients to providers via phone, text, or videoconference. Results We screened 2551 articles and 133 relevant full-text articles. Sixteen efficacy studies with psychosocial and health outcomes representing 12 unique interventions met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 12 were randomized controlled trials and 4 were prospective cohort studies with no comparison group. Most interventions were based in cognitive behavioral theory and designed as eHealth interventions; only 2 were designed as mHealth interventions. All but 2 interventions provided access to support staff via text, phone, email, or discussion forums. The significant heterogeneity in intervention content, intervention structure, medical diagnoses, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. For example, measurement time points ranged from immediately postcompletion of the mHealth program to 18 months later, and we identified 39 unique outcomes of interest. The majority of included studies (11/16, 69%) reported significant changes in measured health and/or psychosocial posttreatment outcomes, with small to large effect sizes. Conclusions Although the available literature on the efficacy of eHealth and mHealth psychosocial interventions for youth with chronic illnesses is limited, preliminary research suggests some evidence of positive treatment responses. Future studies should continue to evaluate whether digital health platforms may be a viable alternative model of delivery to traditional face-to-face approaches.

Background Children, adolescents, and young adults with chronic conditions experience difficulties coping with disease-related stressors, comorbid mental health problems, and decreased quality of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global mental health crisis, and telemental health has necessarily displaced in-person care. However, it remains unknown whether such remote interventions are feasible or efficacious. We aimed to fill this research-practice gap. Objective In this systematic review, we present a synthesis of studies examining the feasibility and efficacy of telemental health interventions for youth aged ≤25 years with chronic illnesses. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 2008 to 2020. We included experimental, quasiexperimental, and observational studies of telemental health interventions designed for children, adolescents, and young adults aged ≤25 years with chronic illnesses, in which feasibility or efficacy outcomes were measured. Only English-language publications in peer-reviewed journals were included. We excluded studies of interventions for caregivers or health care providers, mental health problems not in the context of a chronic illness, disease and medication management, and prevention programs for healthy individuals. Results We screened 2154 unique study records and 109 relevant full-text articles. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, and they represented seven unique telemental health interventions. Five of the studies included feasibility outcomes and seven included efficacy outcomes. All but two studies were pilot studies with relatively small sample sizes. Most interventions were based on cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. The subset of studies examining intervention feasibility concluded that telemental health interventions were appropriate, acceptable, and satisfactory to patients and their parents. Technology did not create barriers in access to care. For the subset of efficacy studies, evidence in support of the efficacy of telemental health was mixed. Significant heterogeneity in treatment type, medical diagnoses, and outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Conclusions The state of the science for telemental health interventions designed for youth with chronic illnesses is in a nascent stage. Early evidence supports the feasibility of telehealth-based delivery of traditional in-person interventions. Few studies have assessed efficacy, and current findings are mixed. Future research should continue to evaluate whether telemental health may serve as a sustainable alternative to in-person care after the COVID pandemic.

Background Although there are thousands of mental health apps, 2 apps, Headspace and Calm, claim a large percentage of the marketplace. These two mindfulness and meditation apps have reached tens of millions of active users. To guide consumers, clinicians, and researchers, we performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Headspace and Calm. Objective Our study aimed to evaluate intervention efficacy, risk of bias, and conflicts of interest (COIs) in the evidence base for Headspace and Calm, the two most popular mental health apps at the time of our search. Methods To identify studies, we searched academic databases (Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) and the websites of Headspace and Calm in May 2021 for RCTs of Headspace and Calm testing efficacy via original data collection, published in English in peer-reviewed journals. For each study, we coded (1) study characteristics (eg, participants, sample size, and outcome measures), (2) intervention characteristics (eg, free vs paid version of the app and intended frequency of app usage), (3) all study outcomes, (4) Cochrane risk of bias variables, and (5) COI variables (eg, presence or absence of a preregistration and the presence or absence of a COI statement involving the company). Results We identified 14 RCTs of Headspace and 1 RCT of Calm. Overall, 93% (13/14) of RCTs of Headspace and 100% (1/1) of RCTs of Calm recruited participants from a nonclinical population. Studies commonly measured mindfulness, well-being, stress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Headspace use improved depression in 75% of studies that evaluated it as an outcome. Findings were mixed for mindfulness, well-being, stress, and anxiety, but at least 40% of studies showed improvement for each of these outcomes. Studies were generally underpowered to detect “small” or “medium” effect sizes. Furthermore, 50% (7/14) of RCTs of Headspace and 0% (0/1) of RCTs of Calm reported a COI that involved Headspace or Calm (the companies). The most common COI was the app company providing premium app access for free for participants, and notably, 14% (2/14) of RCTs of Headspace reported Headspace employee involvement in study design, execution, and data analysis. Only 36% (5/14) of RCTs of Headspace were preregistered, and the 1 RCT of Calm was not preregistered. Conclusions The empirical research on Headspace appears promising, whereas there is an absence of randomized trials on Calm. Limitations of this study include an inability to compare Headspace and Calm owing to the dearth of RCTs studying Calm and the reliance on author reports to evaluate COIs. When determining whether or not mental health apps are of high quality, identification of high-quality apps and evaluation of their effectiveness and investigators’ COIs should be ensured.

BACKGROUND Children, adolescents, and young adults with chronic conditions experience difficulties coping with disease-related stressors, comorbid mental health problems, and decreased quality of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global mental health crisis, and telemental health has necessarily displaced in-person care. However, it remains unknown whether such remote interventions are feasible or efficacious. We aimed to fill this research-practice gap. OBJECTIVE In this systematic review, we present a synthesis of studies examining the feasibility and efficacy of telemental health interventions for youth aged ≤25 years with chronic illnesses. METHODS PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 2008 to 2020. We included experimental, quasiexperimental, and observational studies of telemental health interventions designed for children, adolescents, and young adults aged ≤25 years with chronic illnesses, in which feasibility or efficacy outcomes were measured. Only English-language publications in peer-reviewed journals were included. We excluded studies of interventions for caregivers or health care providers, mental health problems not in the context of a chronic illness, disease and medication management, and prevention programs for healthy individuals. RESULTS We screened 2154 unique study records and 109 relevant full-text articles. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, and they represented seven unique telemental health interventions. Five of the studies included feasibility outcomes and seven included efficacy outcomes. All but two studies were pilot studies with relatively small sample sizes. Most interventions were based on cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. The subset of studies examining intervention feasibility concluded that telemental health interventions were appropriate, acceptable, and satisfactory to patients and their parents. Technology did not create barriers in access to care. For the subset of efficacy studies, evidence in support of the efficacy of telemental health was mixed. Significant heterogeneity in treatment type, medical diagnoses, and outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS The state of the science for telemental health interventions designed for youth with chronic illnesses is in a nascent stage. Early evidence supports the feasibility of telehealth-based delivery of traditional in-person interventions. Few studies have assessed efficacy, and current findings are mixed. Future research should continue to evaluate whether telemental health may serve as a sustainable alternative to in-person care after the COVID pandemic.