Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39542743›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2025

Personalized interventions for behaviour change: A scoping review of just-in-time adaptive interventions.

Ting-Chen Chloe Hsu, Pauline Whelan, Julie Gandrup, Christopher J Armitage, Lis Cordingley, John McBeth

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of health psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Ting-Chen Chloe HsuCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0233-2469
Pauline WhelanCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging & Data Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8689-3919
Julie GandrupCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4109-4889
Christopher J ArmitageManchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2365-1765
Lis CordingleyManchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7675-240X
John McBethCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7047-2183

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeExamine the development, implementation and evaluation of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in behaviour change and evaluate the quality of intervention reporting.

methodsA scoping review of JITAIs incorporating mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve health-related behaviours in adults. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO using terms related to JITAIs, mHealth, behaviour change and intervention methodology. Narrative analysis assessed theoretical foundations, real-time data capturing and processing methods, outcome evaluation and summarized JITAI efficacy. Quality of intervention reporting was assessed using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist.

resultsSixty-two JITAIs across physical activity, sedentary behaviour, dietary behaviour, substance use, sexual behaviour, fluid intake, treatment adherence, social skills, gambling behaviour and self-management skills were included. The majority (71%) aimed to evaluate feasibility, acceptability and/or usability. Supporting evidence for JITAI development was identified in 46 studies, with 67% applying this to develop tailored intervention content. Over half (55%) relied solely on self-reported data for tailoring, and 13 studies used only passive monitoring data. While data processing methods were commonly reported, 44% did not specify their techniques. 89% of JITAI designs achieved full marks on the TIDieR checklist and provided sufficient details on JITAI components. Overall, JITAIs proved to be feasible, acceptable and user-friendly across behaviours and settings. Randomized trials showed tailored interventions were efficacious, though outcomes varied by behaviour.

conclusionsJITAIs offer a promising approach to developing personalized interventions, with their potential effects continuously growing. The recommended checklist emphasizes the importance of reporting transparency in establishing robust intervention designs.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorTelemedicineBehavior TherapyHumansbehaviour changedigital healthjust‐in‐time adaptive interventionmobile healthpersonalized intervention

Identifiers

PMID39542743
PMCPMC11583291

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.