In plain language
Most psychological treatments for young people are standardized: every adolescent gets essentially the same program. But adolescents differ enormously, and up to 80% of mental health disorders begin before age 26. This study asked a practical question: do treatments that are personalized to the individual adolescent actually work better than one-size-fits-all approaches?
The team conducted a scoping review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that directly compared personalized psychological interventions with standardized ones in adolescents. Searching five databases (Scopus, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE), they identified eight studies across 13 articles involving 2,490 adolescents, with seven studies (N = 1,347) providing enough data for a Bayesian multilevel random-effects meta-analysis.
Personalized interventions produced significantly better outcomes than standardized ones, with a small overall effect (d = 0.21) — nearly identical to the effect previously found in adults — and the advantage appeared to be maintained at follow-up. The benefit was larger for some outcomes (a medium effect of d = 0.56 for internalizing and externalizing problems) and depended on how personalization was done: individually tailored treatment and component-level personalization worked, while treatment-matching, intensity-level, and package-level approaches did not show clear advantages. Given how many adolescents worldwide experience mental health problems, even a small average improvement from personalization could have a large global impact.
Key findings
- Eight randomized controlled studies across 13 articles (N = 2,490 adolescents) met inclusion criteria; seven studies across 10 articles (N = 1,347) were meta-analyzed.
- Personalized interventions outperformed standardized interventions with a small but significant effect size (d = 0.21, 95% CrI [0.02, 0.39]), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 53.3%) and no evidence of publication bias.
- The adolescent effect size was nearly identical to that found in adults (d = 0.22), suggesting personalization benefits are similar across age groups.
- Personalization showed a medium effect (d = 0.56) on measures of internalizing and externalizing problems.
- Individually tailored personalization (d = 0.32) and component-level personalization (d = 0.23) were associated with superior outcomes, whereas treatment-matching, intensity-level, and package-level approaches were not.
- Benefits favoring personalized treatment appeared to be maintained at follow-up assessments, hinting at longer-term positive effects.
How to cite
APA
Li, W., Gleeson, J., Fraser, M. I., Ciarrochi, J., Hofmann, S. G., Hayes, S. C., & Sahdra, B. (2024). The efficacy of personalized psychological interventions in adolescents: A scoping review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1470817. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1470817
BibTeX
@article{li2024efficacy,
title = {The efficacy of personalized psychological interventions in adolescents: a scoping review and meta-analysis},
author = {Li, William and Gleeson, John and Fraser, Madeleine I. and Ciarrochi, Joseph and Hofmann, Stefan G. and Hayes, Steven C. and Sahdra, Baljinder},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
volume = {15},
pages = {1470817},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1470817}
}
Related work
- All publications by Joseph Ciarrochi (searchable, with free PDFs)
- Process-Based Therapy & Idionomic Analysis
Author: Joseph Ciarrochi (ORCID 0000-0003-0471-8100). Free copy hosted with permission for scholarly use. Please cite the published version via the DOI above.