Efficacy of personalized psychological interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,617 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Continued Treatment With Tirzepatide for Maintenance of Weight Reduction in Adults With Obesity: The SURMOUNT-4 Randomized Clinical Trial
- Clinical Trial of Vadadustat in Patients with Anemia Secondary to Stage 3 or 4 Chronic Kidney Disease
- Human Leukocyte Antigen Complex and Other Immunogenetic and Clinical Factors Influence Susceptibility or Protection to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severity of the Disease Course. The Sardinian Experience
- Celecoxib or naproxen treatment does not benefit depressive symptoms in persons aged 70 and over: findings from a randomized controlled trial
- Comparative Clinical Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Treatment Methods in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
- Efficacy and safety of adalimumab by intra-articular injection for moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis: An open-label randomized controlled trial
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.