Is the efficacy of hypnotherapy (hypnosis therapy) apps comparable to face-to-face hypnotherapy?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 13, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Efficacy of Hypnotherapy Apps Compared to Face-to-Face Treatment

Hypnotherapy apps show promise but are currently less effective than face-to-face treatment, with limited evidence-based options available and most lacking proper clinical validation.

Current State of Hypnotherapy Apps

The landscape of hypnotherapy apps is concerning from an evidence-based perspective:

  • Only 20.2% of available hypnosis apps indicate that developers or providers have formal training in hypnosis 1
  • Just 7.7% of apps make any claim of evidence-based treatment, and only four apps have been included in clinical efficacy trials 1
  • Out of 679 unique hypnosis apps reviewed, only 168 met basic inclusion criteria for delivering actual hypnotherapy interventions 1

This means the vast majority of apps patients download are not based on validated protocols and may not deliver therapeutic-quality hypnosis.

Direct Comparison: Apps vs. Face-to-Face

The most rigorous comparison comes from a study of Skype-delivered hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome, which serves as a proxy for app-based delivery:

  • Face-to-face hypnotherapy achieved a 76% response rate (defined as ≥50-point reduction in IBS Symptom Severity Score) 2
  • Skype hypnotherapy achieved a 65% response rate - effective but measurably inferior 2
  • All secondary outcomes favored face-to-face treatment: symptom severity reduction (-129.2 vs. -94.1), quality of life improvement (+66.2 vs. +56.4), and pain reduction ≥30% (62% vs. 44%) 2

Video-based hypnotherapy via platforms like Skype appears more effective than pure app-based delivery because it maintains the therapeutic relationship and allows for individualization 3. Early reports suggest video consultation achieves similar response rates to face-to-face treatment 4, though this represents therapist-delivered care via video rather than automated app content.

Evidence for Traditional Face-to-Face Hypnotherapy

To understand what apps are attempting to replicate, the gold standard shows:

  • Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (639 patients) demonstrated face-to-face hypnotherapy reduces risk of remaining symptomatic with RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.55-0.97) compared to education/support 4
  • In the largest clinical series of 1,000 patients, >75% achieved clinical response to face-to-face hypnotherapy 4
  • Long-term efficacy is sustained: 5-year follow-up in children showed 68% remission rate with hypnotherapy vs. 20% with standard care (P=0.005) 4

Clinical Implications and Recommendations

For patients seeking hypnotherapy, prioritize in this order:

  1. Face-to-face treatment with a trained hypnotherapist remains the gold standard 4
  2. Video-delivered hypnotherapy by a trained therapist is an acceptable alternative when access is limited, achieving 65% response rates 2
  3. Evidence-based apps may serve as adjunctive tools but should not replace therapist-delivered care 3

Critical caveats when considering apps:

  • Verify the app developer has formal hypnosis training - 80% do not 1
  • Look for apps with published clinical trial data - only 4 apps have this 1
  • Apps targeting sleep, relaxation, and stress are most common (56%, 54.8%, and 36.9% respectively) but lack validation 1
  • One preliminary survey of the Finito smoking cessation app showed 50.8% quit smoking and 25.8% reduced smoking, but this was uncontrolled survey data 5

Practical Considerations

The British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines note that barriers to hypnotherapy access include cost and therapist availability 4. While apps theoretically address these barriers, the current evidence shows:

  • Group hypnotherapy may be more cost-effective than apps while maintaining therapeutic quality 4
  • Video consultation platforms preserve the therapeutic relationship that appears critical for optimal outcomes 3
  • Apps lack the ability to tailor treatment to individual symptom profiles, which is a key strength of therapist-delivered hypnotherapy 4

Bottom line: Apps are not yet equivalent to face-to-face treatment. If face-to-face or video-delivered hypnotherapy by a trained therapist is accessible, choose that option. Apps may serve as a last resort when no other options exist, but select only those with documented training credentials and clinical trial evidence 1, 3.

References

Research

Hypnosis Apps: A Systematic Review.

The International journal of clinical and experimental hypnosis, 2025

Research

SKYPE HYPNOTHERAPY FOR IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME: Effectiveness and Comparison with Face-to-Face Treatment.

The International journal of clinical and experimental hypnosis, 2019

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.