Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37283721›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2023

Personalization strategies in digital mental health interventions: a systematic review and conceptual framework for depressive symptoms.

Silvan Hornstein, Kirsten Zantvoort, Ulrike Lueken, Burkhardt Funk, Kevin Hilbert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Silvan HornsteinDepartment of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Kirsten ZantvoortInstitute of Information Systems, Leuphana University, Lueneburg, Germany.
Ulrike LuekenDepartment of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Burkhardt FunkInstitute of Information Systems, Leuphana University, Lueneburg, Germany.
Kevin HilbertDepartment of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Personalization is a much-discussed approach to improve adherence and outcomes for Digital Mental Health interventions (DMHIs). Yet, major questions remain open, such as (1) what personalization is, (2) how prevalent it is in practice, and (3) what benefits it truly has. Methods: We address this gap by performing a systematic literature review identifying all empirical studies on DMHIs targeting depressive symptoms in adults from 2015 to September 2022. The search in Pubmed, SCOPUS and Psycinfo led to the inclusion of 138 articles, describing 94 distinct DMHIs provided to an overall sample of approximately 24,300 individuals. Results: Our investigation results in the conceptualization of personalization as purposefully designed variation between individuals in an intervention's therapeutic elements or its structure. We propose to further differentiate personalization by what is personalized (i.e., intervention content, content order, level of guidance or communication) and the underlying mechanism [i.e., user choice, provider choice, decision rules, and machine-learning (ML) based approaches]. Applying this concept, we identified personalization in 66% of the interventions for depressive symptoms, with personalized intervention content (32% of interventions) and communication with the user (30%) being particularly popular. Personalization via decision rules (48%) and user choice (36%) were the most used mechanisms, while the utilization of ML was rare (3%). Two-thirds of personalized interventions only tailored one dimension of the intervention. Discussion: We conclude that future interventions could provide even more personalized experiences and especially benefit from using ML models. Finally, empirical evidence for personalization was scarce and inconclusive, making further evidence for the benefits of personalization highly needed. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier: CRD42022357408.

Indexed as

depressiondigital mental healthpersonalizationprecision care, iCBT, machine learning

Identifiers

PMID37283721
PMCPMC10239832

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.