ReviewNPJ digital medicine2026
A clinically actionable framework for personalizing iCBT to improve depression outcomes.
Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) is effective for depression, but its impact is constrained by low engagement and modest response rates. Personalization may address these limitations, yet a gap remains between research evidence and clinically actionable implementation. This narrative review synthesizes evidence on personalization in iCBT for depression using a three-stage framework: pre-implementation optimization, stratifying treatment based on patient characteristics, and dynamically adapting therapy using progress monitoring. Evidence was evaluated using principles of evidence grading, with attention to the volume, consistency, and directness of findings for each stage. The strongest evidence supports pre-implementation optimization of engagement and stratification of initial support based on baseline severity, treatment history, and related clinical characteristics. Evidence for dynamic adaptation is promising but less developed, with support for early identification of nonresponse and adjustment of treatment intensity, but limited iCBT-specific trials testing adaptive treatment strategies in depression. Across stages, engagement and clinical outcomes are related but distinct targets for personalization. Emerging research on responsiveness, progress monitoring, and digital biomarkers offers future opportunities for more precise and scalable personalization. More rigorous depression-specific iCBT studies are needed to determine when, how, and for whom personalized interventions improve engagement and clinical outcomes.
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.