Personalization variables in digital mental health interventions for depression and anxiety in adolescents and youth: a scoping review.

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2025-05-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1500220
Vajisha Udayangi Wanniarachchi, Chris Greenhalgh, Adrien Choi, James R Warren
{"title":"Personalization variables in digital mental health interventions for depression and anxiety in adolescents and youth: a scoping review.","authors":"Vajisha Udayangi Wanniarachchi, Chris Greenhalgh, Adrien Choi, James R Warren","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2025.1500220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The impact of personalization on user engagement and adherence in digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) has been widely explored. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the prevalence of its application, as well as the dimensions and mechanisms of personalization within DMHIs for adolescents and youth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To understand how personalization has been applied in DMHIs for adolescents and young people, a scoping review was conducted. Empirical studies on DMHIs for adolescents and youth with depression and anxiety, published between 2013 and July 2024, were extracted from PubMed and Scopus. A total of 67 studies were included in the review. Additionally, we expanded an existing personalization framework, which originally classified personalization into four dimensions (content, order, guidance, and communication) and four mechanisms (user choice, provider choice, rule-based, and machine learning), by incorporating non-therapeutic elements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The adapted framework includes therapeutic and non-therapeutic content, order, guidance, therapeutic and non-therapeutic communication, interfaces (customization of non-therapeutic visual or interactive components), and interactivity (personalization of user preferences), while retaining the original mechanisms. Half of the interventions studied used only one personalization dimension (51%), and more than two-thirds used only one personalization mechanism. This review found that personalization of therapeutic content (51% of the interventions) and interfaces (25%) were favored. User choice was the most prevalent personalization mechanism, present in 60% of interventions. Additionally, machine learning mechanisms were employed in a substantial number of cases (30%), but there were no instances of generative artificial intelligence (AI) among the included studies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The findings of the review suggest that although personalization elements of the interventions are reported in the articles, their impact on younger people's experience with DMHIs and adherence to mental health protocols is not thoroughly addressed. Future interventions may benefit from incorporating generative AI, while adhering to standard clinical research practices, to further personalize user experiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"7 ","pages":"1500220"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12119569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1500220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The impact of personalization on user engagement and adherence in digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) has been widely explored. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the prevalence of its application, as well as the dimensions and mechanisms of personalization within DMHIs for adolescents and youth.

Methods: To understand how personalization has been applied in DMHIs for adolescents and young people, a scoping review was conducted. Empirical studies on DMHIs for adolescents and youth with depression and anxiety, published between 2013 and July 2024, were extracted from PubMed and Scopus. A total of 67 studies were included in the review. Additionally, we expanded an existing personalization framework, which originally classified personalization into four dimensions (content, order, guidance, and communication) and four mechanisms (user choice, provider choice, rule-based, and machine learning), by incorporating non-therapeutic elements.

Results: The adapted framework includes therapeutic and non-therapeutic content, order, guidance, therapeutic and non-therapeutic communication, interfaces (customization of non-therapeutic visual or interactive components), and interactivity (personalization of user preferences), while retaining the original mechanisms. Half of the interventions studied used only one personalization dimension (51%), and more than two-thirds used only one personalization mechanism. This review found that personalization of therapeutic content (51% of the interventions) and interfaces (25%) were favored. User choice was the most prevalent personalization mechanism, present in 60% of interventions. Additionally, machine learning mechanisms were employed in a substantial number of cases (30%), but there were no instances of generative artificial intelligence (AI) among the included studies.

Discussion: The findings of the review suggest that although personalization elements of the interventions are reported in the articles, their impact on younger people's experience with DMHIs and adherence to mental health protocols is not thoroughly addressed. Future interventions may benefit from incorporating generative AI, while adhering to standard clinical research practices, to further personalize user experiences.

青少年抑郁和焦虑的数字化心理健康干预中的个性化变量:范围综述
个性化对数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)中用户参与度和依从性的影响已被广泛探索。然而,目前尚不清楚其应用的普遍程度,以及青少年和青年DMHIs中个性化的维度和机制。方法:为了了解个性化是如何应用于青少年和年轻人的DMHIs,进行了一项范围审查。2013年至2024年7月发表的关于青少年和青少年抑郁和焦虑患者DMHIs的实证研究,摘自PubMed和Scopus。该综述共纳入67项研究。此外,我们扩展了现有的个性化框架,该框架最初将个性化分为四个维度(内容、顺序、指导和沟通)和四个机制(用户选择、提供者选择、基于规则和机器学习),并纳入了非治疗性元素。结果:调整后的框架包括治疗性和非治疗性内容、顺序、指导、治疗性和非治疗性沟通、界面(非治疗性视觉或交互组件的定制)和交互性(用户偏好的个性化),同时保留了原有的机制。研究中有一半的干预措施只使用了一种个性化维度(51%),超过三分之二的干预措施只使用了一种个性化机制。本综述发现个性化治疗内容(51%的干预措施)和界面(25%)受到青睐。用户选择是最普遍的个性化机制,存在于60%的干预中。此外,大量案例(30%)采用了机器学习机制,但在纳入的研究中没有生成式人工智能(AI)的实例。讨论:审查的结果表明,尽管文章中报告了干预措施的个性化因素,但它们对年轻人使用DMHIs的经历和遵守心理健康协议的影响并没有得到彻底解决。未来的干预措施可能受益于结合生成式人工智能,同时坚持标准的临床研究实践,以进一步个性化用户体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信