Efficacy and Conflicts of Interest in Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Headspace and Calm Apps: Systematic Review

Abstract

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.

Development and initial testing of mindful journey: a digital mindfulness-based intervention for promoting recovery from Substance use disorder

“…Similar to other mindfulness apps, such as Headspace [ 58 ], we used animations to teach mindfulness concepts and skills…”

Complementary Medicine and Expressive Arts Therapy: Adjuvant for Recovery Following Neurosurgical Procedures

“…Music therapy apps show promise in aiding gait training in Parkinson's, treating episodic migraine headaches, and rehabilitation following stroke [46][47][48]. Headspace and Calm are two mind-body health apps that help decrease depression [49]. Similar to telemedicine, apps provide increased access and may generate more interest in complementary medicine and ExAT.…”

Achtsamkeit: Gesund und munter per App?

“…Die Autoren wiesen darauf hin, dass etwa die Hälfte der Studien nicht unabhängig seien. Trotzdem sei die Forschung zu Achtsamkeits-Apps insgesamt vielversprechend, schlussfolgern die Wissenschaftler 4 .…”