Evidence mapPaperPMID 39290843Full record

ArticleiScience2024

A systematic review on eHealth technology personalization approaches.

Iris Ten Klooster, Hanneke Kip, Lisette van Gemert-Pijnen, Rik Crutzen, Saskia Kelders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Iris Ten KloosterCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health, and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Hanneke KipCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health, and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Lisette van Gemert-PijnenCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health, and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Rik CrutzenDepartment of Health Promotion, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Saskia KeldersCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health, and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of personalization of eHealth technologies, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding its application. This systematic review aims to bridge this gap by identifying and clustering different personalization approaches based on the type of variables used for user segmentation and the adaptations to the eHealth technology and examining the role of computational methods in the literature. From the 412 included reports, we identified 13 clusters of personalization approaches, such as behavior + channeling and environment + recommendations. Within these clusters, 10 computational methods were utilized to match segments with technology adaptations, such as classification-based methods and reinforcement learning. Several gaps were identified in the literature, such as the limited exploration of technology-related variables, the limited focus on user interaction reminders, and a frequent reliance on a single type of variable for personalization. Future research should explore leveraging technology-specific features to attain individualistic segmentation approaches.

Indexed as

Health sciencesHealth technology

Identifiers

PMID39290843
PMCPMC11406103

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.