ABSTRACT
This systematic literature review aimed to propose a definition of personalized psychological treatment and to suggest how the definition can be operationalized. PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to 11 December 2023 for studies in which a definition of personalized psychological treatment was included or a systematic operationalization of personalized psychological treatment was described. Based on a narrative synthesis of the collected definitions, summary categories were developed that informed the proposed definition. Operationalizations were described according to what aspect of treatment, how and when treatment was personalized. The extent to which the operationalizations deviated from the proposed definition was assessed. Thirty-four studies with definitions and 200 with operationalizations were included. The following definition was proposed: personalized psychological treatment aims to optimize treatment outcome for the individual patient by tailoring treatment to unique or specific needs, preferences or other characteristics and includes a systematic adaptation of treatment or a differentiation between treatment strategies. Based on the operationalizations, timing of personalization, specification of the systematic approach and treatment elements that could be personalized were added to the proposed definition. Evidence-based personalization of psychological treatments can be enhanced by clear operationalization based on a comprehensive definition of personalization.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate the extent to which three systematic approaches for prioritizing symptoms lead to similar treatment advices in cancer survivors with co-occurring fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and/or cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: Psychological treatment advices were was based on three approaches: patient preference, symptom severity, and temporal precedence of symptoms based on ecological momentary assessments. The level of agreement was calculated according to the Kappa statistic. RESULTS: Overall, we found limited agreement between the three approaches. Pairwise comparison showed moderate agreement between patient preference and symptom severity. Most patients preferred treatment for fatigue. Treatment for fear of cancer recurrence was mostly indicated when based on symptom severity. Agreement between temporal precedence and the other approaches was slight. A clear treatment advice based on temporal precedence was possible in 57% of cases. In cases where it was possible, all symptoms were about equally likely to be indicated. CONCLUSIONS: The three approaches lead to different treatment advices. Future research should determine how the approaches are related to treatment outcome. We propose to discuss the results of each approach in a shared decision-making process to make a well-informed and personalized decision with regard to which symptom to target in psychological treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study contributes to the development of systematic approaches for selecting the focus of psychological treatment in cancer survivors with co-occurring symptoms by providing and comparing three different systematic approaches for prioritizing symptoms.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: A common approach to personalizing psychological interventions is the allocation of treatment modules to individual patients based on cut-off scores on questionnaires, which are mostly based on group studies. However, this way, intraindividual variation and temporal dynamics are not taken into account. Automated individual time series analyses are a possible solution, since these can identify the factors influencing the targeted symptom in a specific individual, and associated modules can be allocated accordingly. The aim of this study was to illustrate how automated individual time series analyses can be applied to personalize cognitive behavioral therapy for cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors and how this procedure differs from allocating modules based on questionnaires. METHODS: This study was a case report series (n = 3). Patients completed ecological momentary assessments at the start of therapy, and after three treatment modules (approximately 14 weeks). Assessments were analyzed with AutoVAR, an R package that automates the process of finding optimal vector autoregressive models. The results informed the treatment plan. RESULTS: Three cases were described. From the ecological momentary assessments and automated time series analyses three individual treatment plans were constructed, in which the most important predictor for cancer-related fatigue was treated first. For two patients, this led to the treatment ending after the follow-up ecological momentary assessments. One patient continued treatment until six months, the standard treatment time in regular treatment. All three treatment plans differed from the treatment plans informed by questionnaire scores. DISCUSSION: This study is one of the first to apply time series analyses in systematically personalizing psychological treatment. An important strength of this approach is that it can be used for every modular cognitive behavioral intervention where each treatment module addresses specific maintaining factors. Whether or not personalized CBT is more efficacious than standard, non-personalized CBT remains to be determined in controlled studies comparing it to usual care.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and cancer-related fatigue are prevalent symptoms among cancer survivors, adversely affecting patients' quality of life and daily functioning. Effect sizes of interventions targeting these symptoms are mostly small to medium. Personalizing treatment is assumed to improve efficacy. However, thus far the empirical support for this approach is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate if systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy is more efficacious than standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors with moderate to severe fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and/or cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: The study is designed as a non-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms (ratio 1:1): (a) systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy and (b) standard cognitive behavioral therapy. In the standard treatment arm, patients receive an evidence-based diagnosis-specific treatment protocol for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, or cancer-related fatigue. In the second arm, treatment is personalized on four dimensions: (a) the allocation of treatment modules based on ecological momentary assessments, (b) treatment delivery, (c) patients' needs regarding the symptom for which they want to receive treatment, and (d) treatment duration. In total, 190 cancer survivors who experience one or more of the targeted symptoms and ended their medical treatment with curative intent at least 6 months to a maximum of 5 years ago will be included. Primary outcome is limitations in daily functioning. Secondary outcomes are level of fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, fatigue severity, quality of life, goal attainment, therapist time, and drop-out rates. Participants are assessed at baseline (T0), and after 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of personalized cognitive behavioral therapy to standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors. The study has several innovative characteristics, among which is the personalization of interventions on several dimensions. If proven effective, the results of this study provide a first step in developing an evidence-based framework for personalizing therapies in a systematic and replicable way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NL7481 (NTR7723). Registered on 24 January 2019.