SynthesisNature human behaviour2025
A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis on the efficacy and potential of mobile interventions for stress management.
Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing prevalence of stress underscores the demand for effective, self-administered mobile mental health interventions, yet their efficacy and accessibility are still unclear. Here, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to classify self-administered mobile stress management interventions, compare their efficacy and examine their moderators. We searched PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycARTICLES from database inception to 20 November 2023. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials on peer-reviewed, Internet-based, self-administered psychological interventions for stress reduction in healthy or subhealthy adults. A total of 63 studies with 20,454 participants were included (68.18% female; mean age 39.14 years). Integrated expert insights with large language models to develop a three-dimensional framework encompassing theoretical foundation, human support and mobile technology. Intervention labels were independently coded by the authors and ChatGPT. The included studies' quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis and Bayesian meta-regression were used to explore comparative efficacy and potential moderators. The framework classified and compared 19 mobile stress interventions, identifying key moderating factors for optimization. Stress management programmes, problem-solving therapy and mindfulness meditation ranked the top. There was no conclusive evidence that human support or mobile technology significantly enhanced intervention outcomes. The evidence is subject to sex imbalance and quality risk, while the limited statistical power of meta-regression warrants caution in interpreting moderator effects. Our findings provide insights for designing more effective and scalable stress interventions and offer promising strategies to reduce health service disparities and advance the Sustainable Development Goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40301630What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.