Trial reportJMIR mental health2025
Personalization Strategies for Increasing Engagement With Digital Mental Health Resources: Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial.
Trial report in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Engagement with Digital Mental Health Resources Among Sexual and Gender Minority Users: Protocol for a Series of Microrandomized Trials.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Using Ultra-Abridged Individual Difference Scales for Personalization in Digital Mental Health to Improve Uptake, Engagement, and Experiences: Three-Tiered Decision Framework for Scale Shortening.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- How topic content shapes LLM personality-tailored persuasion: semantic anchoring and topic stereotype effects.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Correction: Personalization Strategies for Increasing Engagement With Digital Mental Health Resources: Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Although web-based mental health resources have the potential to assist millions, particularly those who face barriers to treatment, most mental health website visitors disengage before accessing resources that can help improve their mental health. Objective: We used a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to test whether personalized tailoring improved engagement on a self-guided mental health website. Methods: Data were collected via voluntary response sampling on the Mental Health America website. Inclusion criteria included residing in the United States and viewing a postscreening survey after completing the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 postscreening survey conditions: the demographics survey or the Next Steps survey, which included additional tailoring questions assessing perceived need and participants' intended next steps. Participants who viewed the following screening results page were subsequently randomized to 1 of 5 conditions that displayed nontailored or tailored messages and featured resources, as well as persistent general resources that did not vary by condition. Data were analyzed using logistic regressions predicting disengagement and clicks on featured resources (versus persistent general resources) by condition. Results: Adding questions to inform tailoring significantly increased the odds of disengaging by 14% (demographics survey: 25%; Next Steps survey: 27.5%; odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.11-1.16; P<.001). Among participants who viewed a postscreening survey (n=169,647), 87,712 participants were randomized to the demographics survey condition, and 81,935 participants were randomized to the Next Steps survey condition. Among participants who submitted the demographics survey (n=38,490), tailoring resources to demographics reduced the odds of disengaging by 10% (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.94; P<.001) and, among those who engaged, increased the odds of clicking a featured resource versus a persistent general resource by 90% (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.79-2.01; P<.001). Among participants who submitted the Next Steps survey (n=34,204), tailoring messages to perceived need (P=.33), tailoring resources to intended next steps (P=.51), and a combination of both (P=.52) did not significantly reduce the odds of disengaging compared with the nontailored condition. However, tailoring resources to intended next steps and combining a tailored message to perceived need with tailored resources to intended next steps increased the odds of clicking a featured resource by 25% (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.37; P<.001) and 34% (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.23-1.47; P<.001), respectively. Tailoring resources to demographics was significantly more effective in improving engagement than tailoring to perceived need or intended next steps (P≤.004). Conclusions: There was a small but statistically significant cost to engagement from adding tailoring questions assessing perceived need and intended next steps. Among the strategies tested in this study, tailoring resources to demographics was the most effective strategy for increasing engagement among visitors who viewed their screening results. This study demonstrates how personalization may increase engagement with mental health websites and provides design implications for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.