Use of Mobile Apps and Online Programs of Mindfulness and Self-Compassion Training in Workers: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Mindfulness and self-compassion interventions are two strategies helpful in preventing and reducing burnout and work stress. However, professionals with overburdened schedules can experience obstacles in learning and practicing these interventions, originally taught with lengthy programs. The use of digital technologies could make these interventions more accessible to workers, as studied in a recent, growing body of evidence. The evidence available is diverse in terms of interventions, designs, outcomes, and populations. This calls for a review that can take into consideration this diversity while still rigorously synthesize it. Scoping reviews are designed to examine emerging evidence and summarize the evidence on a specific topic of interest. The present scoping review aims to assess the current state of the literature on the use of online programs and mobile applications of self-compassion, mindfulness, and meditation (digital mindfulness-based interventions; dMBIs) by workers. More specifically, information on the type of intervention, population, advantages, and disadvantages, measured outcomes, and advice for future research are gathered. MEDLINE (PubMed; Ovid), PsychInfo (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate) were searched to identify all relevant articles. The screening process resulted in 56 articles being included in this scoping review. Inclusion criteria were (1) participants are workers; (2) the intervention is individual, digital, and mindfulness/self-compassion/meditation-based; and (3) articles were available in French or English language at the time of the review. Interventions used were mostly mindfulness-based, equally categorized under web-based and app-based interventions. Most interventions included information on mindfulness, meditation or self-compassion, meditation exercises, other types of exercises, instructions on how to use, and reminders. dMBIs are often studied in the healthcare population and predominantly in female samples. Although dMBIs present advantages (low cost, accessibility, practicality, feasibility), obstacles can arise in their implementation (low engagement and motivation, concerns about confidentiality). Included articles measured outcomes related to work, mindfulness or self-compassion, and other psychological variables (stress/anxiety, depression, resilience, wellbeing). Articles provided important directions to further research on dMBIs regarding methodological aspects, modality and intervention, and individual and organizational questions. dMBIs are becoming more popular and interventions are diverse. Although not without limitations, this scoping provided a synthesis on different aspects of the use of dMBIs within workers and highlighted pertinent future research directions.

Evolution of Primary Research Studies in Digital Interventions for Mental Well-Being Promotion from 2004 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis of Studies on the Web of Science

“…This occurrence has been frequently explored in reviews examining the effectiveness of digital mindfulness-based interventions and includes implementation obstacles, low quality of evidence, and the emergence of evidence supporting non-digital mindfulness-based interventions as more effective than their digitally delivered counterparts. This highlights a pivotal challenge for digital mental health research: balancing the rapid development and deployment of digital interventions with the rigorous, long-term evaluation necessary to validate their effectiveness and optimise their design for diverse populations [ 71 , 72 , 73 ].…”

A qualitative exploration of an autism-specific self-compassion program: The ASPAA

“…For instance, our participants wanted more autism-specific content and lived experience videos. Further revisions related to broader “autism-friendly” principles that have been well documented in other areas, principles such as flexibility and adaptability ( Jones, 2022 ), accessible language ( Haydon et al, 2021 ; Sarrett, 2017 ), references for additional reading, multi-modal learning opportunities ( Clouder et al, 2020 ; Davis et al, 2021 ), and the option to engage on a tablet or mobile ( Bégin et al, 2022 ).…”

“…In the general population, research has shown that online programs can serve as a viable method for promoting mental health in various areas, including depression, anxiety, well-being, stress, and mindfulness. Such programs have been demonstrated to provide benefits that are comparable to face-to-face services ( Bégin et al, 2022 ; Saddichha et al, 2014 ; Sommers-Spijkerman et al, 2021 ; Spijkerman et al, 2016 ). Similarly, online self-compassion programs have demonstrated benefits, with notable increases in self-compassion, life satisfaction, and happiness and decrease in self-hatred, anxiety, stress, depression, and emotional regulation difficulties (e.g.…”

“…Notably, these gains have remained stable over time ( Finlay-Jones et al, 2017 ; Krieger et al, 2016 ). Other advantages to online programs for users include being affordable, completable in private, self-paced, repeatable, and different modalities to support learning styles ( Bégin et al, 2022 ).…”

A Systematic Realist Synthesis of Digital Interventions for Enhancing Mental Health at Work: Contexts, Mechanisms, and Outcomes

“…To summarize, the current review can help stakeholders make choices that are better aligned with the needs and realities of the target population by providing details about previous results on DIs effectiveness (see Supplementary material) and being aware of those conditions ensuring their effectiveness and their underlying working mechanisms (Table 1). Findings from previous systematic reviews highlighted the need for DIs to be designed, based on the context, in terms of the organizational preferences and target population (i.e., type of occupation) [92,93]. Realist evaluation thus takes the form of a potential approach that can be integrated into the evaluation of the DIs' effectiveness to highlight and understand which of the digital solutions worked, for whom, and under what circumstances [20].…”