Personalization strategies in digital mental health interventions: a systematic review and conceptual framework for depressive symptoms
Research output: Journal contributions › Scientific review articles › Research
Standard
In: Frontiers in Digital Health, Vol. 5, 1170002, 22.05.2023.
Research output: Journal contributions › Scientific review articles › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Personalization strategies in digital mental health interventions: a systematic review and conceptual framework for depressive symptoms
AU - Hornstein, Silvan
AU - Zantvoort, Kirsten
AU - Lueken, Ulrike
AU - Funk, Burkhardt
AU - Hilbert, Kevin
N1 - Publisher Copyright: 2023 Hornstein, Zantvoort, Lueken, Funk and Hilbert.
PY - 2023/5/22
Y1 - 2023/5/22
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Health sciences
KW - depression
KW - digital mental health
KW - Personalization
KW - precision care
KW - iCBT
KW - machine learning
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85161078372&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/496c5805-94af-390c-be39-d36a9b1e33f3/
U2 - 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1170002
DO - 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1170002
M3 - Scientific review articles
C2 - 37283721
VL - 5
JO - Frontiers in Digital Health
JF - Frontiers in Digital Health
SN - 2673-253X
M1 - 1170002
ER -