Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37768709›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis.

Emma Louise Osborne, Ben Ainsworth, Nic Hooper, Melissa Jayne Atkinson

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emma Louise OsborneDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5631-7037
Ben AinsworthDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5098-1092
Nic HooperSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5140-1187
Melissa Jayne AtkinsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7699-2398

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are a promising approach to deliver accessible and scalable mindfulness training and have been shown to improve a range of health outcomes. However, the success of digital MBIs is reliant on adequate engagement, which remains a crucial challenge. Understanding people's experiences of using digital MBIs and identifying the core factors that facilitate or act as barriers to engagement is essential to inform intervention development and maximize engagement and outcomes.

objectiveThis study aims to systematically map the literature on people's experiences of using digital MBIs that target psychosocial variables (eg, anxiety, depression, distress, and well-being) and identify key barriers to and facilitators of engagement.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review to synthesize empirical qualitative research on people's experiences of using digital MBIs. We adopted a streamlined approach to ensure that the evidence could be incorporated into the early stages of intervention development. The search strategy identified articles with at least one keyword related to mindfulness, digital, user experience, and psychosocial variables in their title or abstract. Inclusion criteria specified that articles must have a qualitative component, report on participants' experiences of using a digital MBI designed to improve psychosocial variables, and have a sample age range that at least partially overlapped with 16 to 35 years. Qualitative data on user experience were charted and analyzed using inductive thematic synthesis to generate understandings that go beyond the content of the original studies. We used the Quality of Reporting Tool to critically appraise the included sources of evidence.

resultsThe search identified 530 studies, 22 (4.2%) of which met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the samples were approximately 78% female and 79% White; participants were aged between 16 and 69 years; and the most used measures in intervention studies were mindfulness, psychological flexibility, and variables related to mental health (including depression, anxiety, stress, and well-being). All studies were judged to be adequately reported. We identified 3 themes characterizing barriers to and facilitators of engagement: responses to own practice (ie, negative reactions to one's own practice are common and can deplete motivation), making mindfulness a habit (ie, creating a consistent training routine is essential yet challenging), and leaning on others (ie, those engaging depend on someone else for support).

conclusionsThe themes identified in this review provide crucial insights as to why people frequently stop engaging with digital MBIs. Researchers and developers should consider using person-based coparticipatory methods to improve acceptability of and engagement with digital MBIs, increase their effectiveness, and support their translation to real-world use. Such strategies must be grounded in relevant literature and meet the priorities and needs of the individuals who will use the interventions.

Indexed as

MindfulnessAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung Adultdigital interventiondropouteHealthengagementmHealthmindfulnessmobile healthmobile phonepsychosocial interventionqualitative researchscoping reviewthematic synthesis

Identifiers

PMID37768709
PMCPMC10570895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.