Personalization Strategies for Increasing Engagement With Digital Mental Health Resources: Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although web-based mental health resources have the potential to assist millions, particularly those who face barriers to treatment, most mental health website visitors disengage before accessing resources that can help improve their mental health. Objective: We used a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to test whether personalized tailoring improved engagement on a self-guided mental health website. Methods: Data were collected via voluntary response sampling on the Mental Health America website. Inclusion criteria included residing in the United States and viewing a postscreening survey after completing the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 postscreening survey conditions: the demographics survey or the Next Steps survey, which included additional tailoring questions assessing perceived need and participants' intended next steps. Participants who viewed the following screening results page were subsequently randomized to 1 of 5 conditions that displayed nontailored or tailored messages and featured resources, as well as persistent general resources that did not vary by condition. Data were analyzed using logistic regressions predicting disengagement and clicks on featured resources (versus persistent general resources) by condition. Results: Adding questions to inform tailoring significantly increased the odds of disengaging by 14% (demographics survey: 25%; Next Steps survey: 27.5%; odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.11-1.16; P<.001). Among participants who viewed a postscreening survey (n=169,647), 87,712 participants were randomized to the demographics survey condition, and 81,935 participants were randomized to the Next Steps survey condition. Among participants who submitted the demographics survey (n=38,490), tailoring resources to demographics reduced the odds of disengaging by 10% (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.94; P<.001) and, among those who engaged, increased the odds of clicking a featured resource versus a persistent general resource by 90% (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.79-2.01; P<.001). Among participants who submitted the Next Steps survey (n=34,204), tailoring messages to perceived need (P=.33), tailoring resources to intended next steps (P=.51), and a combination of both (P=.52) did not significantly reduce the odds of disengaging compared with the nontailored condition. However, tailoring resources to intended next steps and combining a tailored message to perceived need with tailored resources to intended next steps increased the odds of clicking a featured resource by 25% (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.37; P<.001) and 34% (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.23-1.47; P<.001), respectively. Tailoring resources to demographics was significantly more effective in improving engagement than tailoring to perceived need or intended next steps (P≤.004). Conclusions: There was a small but statistically significant cost to engagement from adding tailoring questions assessing perceived need and intended next steps. Among the strategies tested in this study, tailoring resources to demographics was the most effective strategy for increasing engagement among visitors who viewed their screening results. This study demonstrates how personalization may increase engagement with mental health websites and provides design implications for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".