{"title":"Efficacy of personalized psychological interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Arthur Nye, Jaime Delgadillo, Michael Barkham","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy of different approaches to personalization in psychological therapy.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the mental health outcomes of personalized treatment with standardized treatment and other control groups. Eligible studies were identified through three databases (Scopus, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science). We conducted a narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis of available outcomes date, including subgroup analyses to investigate sources of effect size heterogeneity. The review protocol was preregistered in the Open Science Framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen studies (<i>N</i> = 7,617) met inclusion criteria for the review, nine of which (<i>N</i> = 5,134) provided sufficient data for inclusion in meta-analysis. Eight studies were classed as having high risk of bias, eight had moderate risk, and one had low risk. There was no significant evidence of publication bias. A statistically significant effect size was found in favor of personalized treatment relative to standardized treatment (<i>d</i> = 0.22, 95% CI [0.05, 0.39], <i>p</i> = .011). When studies with a high risk of bias were removed, this effect size was smaller but remained statistically significant (<i>d</i> = 0.14, 95% CI [0.08, 0.20], <i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence indicates that personalization is an effective strategy to improve outcomes from psychological therapy, and the seemingly small effect size advantage of personalization could have an important impact at a clinical population level. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":"91 7","pages":"389-397"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000820","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of different approaches to personalization in psychological therapy.
Method: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the mental health outcomes of personalized treatment with standardized treatment and other control groups. Eligible studies were identified through three databases (Scopus, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science). We conducted a narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis of available outcomes date, including subgroup analyses to investigate sources of effect size heterogeneity. The review protocol was preregistered in the Open Science Framework.
Results: Seventeen studies (N = 7,617) met inclusion criteria for the review, nine of which (N = 5,134) provided sufficient data for inclusion in meta-analysis. Eight studies were classed as having high risk of bias, eight had moderate risk, and one had low risk. There was no significant evidence of publication bias. A statistically significant effect size was found in favor of personalized treatment relative to standardized treatment (d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.05, 0.39], p = .011). When studies with a high risk of bias were removed, this effect size was smaller but remained statistically significant (d = 0.14, 95% CI [0.08, 0.20], p < .001).
Conclusion: Current evidence indicates that personalization is an effective strategy to improve outcomes from psychological therapy, and the seemingly small effect size advantage of personalization could have an important impact at a clinical population level. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
目的:评价不同的个性化方法在心理治疗中的效果。方法:这是一项随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析，比较了个性化治疗与标准化治疗和其他对照组的心理健康结果。通过三个数据库(Scopus, APA PsycInfo和Web of Science)确定符合条件的研究。我们对现有结果进行了叙述性综合和随机效应荟萃分析，包括亚组分析以调查效应大小异质性的来源。审查方案已在开放科学框架中预注册。结果:17项研究(N = 7617)符合本综述的纳入标准，其中9项研究(N = 5134)提供了足够的数据纳入meta分析。8项研究被归类为高风险偏倚，8项为中等风险，1项为低风险。没有明显的发表偏倚证据。与标准化治疗相比，个性化治疗的效果显著(d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.05, 0.39]， p = 0.011)。当剔除高偏倚风险的研究后，该效应值较小，但仍具有统计学意义(d = 0.14, 95% CI [0.08, 0.20]， p < .001)。结论:目前的证据表明，个性化是改善心理治疗结果的有效策略，个性化看似小的效应量优势可能在临床人群水平上产生重要影响。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA，版权所有)。
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
