Mobile Apps for Tinnitus: Systematic Search in App Stores and Review of Intervention Components and Behavior Change Techniques

Abstract Background Previous research suggests that 14.4% of the general population is affected by tinnitus. For some of those affected, the ear noise is bothersome or associated with severe distress. There are various treatment options such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), sound therapy, or hearing aids. In addition to browser-based online interventions, mobile apps have been introduced as novel treatment approaches. Previous studies have identified several apps aimed at supporting users with tinnitus. Yet, knowledge about the content of tinnitus apps is limited. Objective This study aimed to provide an overview of apps specifically developed for tinnitus by analyzing general app characteristics, as well as app content, focusing on intervention components and behavior change techniques (BCTs). Methods A systematic search using 7 search terms (eg, tinnitus and ear noise) was conducted in the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store. Apps designed specifically for tinnitus and available in German or English met the inclusion criteria. Two independent trained raters assessed general app characteristics (eg, age group and costs) using the app description section of the German version of the Mobile App Rating Scale. In addition, raters analyzed app content using the BCT taxonomy (v1) and a list of typical intervention components in tinnitus treatment. Differences in ratings were discussed, and a third trained rater was consulted if no consensus was reached. Results A total of 1198 apps were identified in the systematic search. Of those, 69 apps were included in the final analysis. Fifty-two apps were available for free, 23 of which offered in-app purchases. Among the 17 paid apps, costs ranged between €0.69 (US $0.81) and €450 (US $527) per 12 months. Fifty-eight of 69 apps provided sounds (eg, white noise and nature sounds). Many apps assessed tinnitus characteristics (n=38) and provided information about tinnitus (n=27). The most frequently used BCTs were “instruction on how to perform the behavior” (n=25; eg, audio instructions for relaxation techniques), “feedback on behavior” (n=11), “behavioral practice/rehearsal” (n=11), “information about health consequences” (n=11), “information about emotional consequences” (n=11), and “prompts/cues” (n=11). The number of BCTs implemented varied widely across apps (0‐18 per app). Conclusions Most tinnitus apps offer sound-based interventions (eg, white noise and nature sounds). Notably, CBT elements (eg, cognitive restructuring, attention training, and relaxation training) are implemented less frequently, despite CBT being recommended in tinnitus treatment guidelines. Further research on the efficacy of tinnitus apps is needed. Transparent reporting of intervention techniques may help clarify mechanisms of action and support the replication of effective interventions. Given the large number of readily accessible apps, this study provides an overview relevant to both researchers and health care professionals.