Cited by 689Behavioral Health and InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions

Lustria, Mia Liza A., Noar, Seth M., Cortese, Juliann, Van Stee, Stephanie K., Glueckauf, Robert L., Lee, Junga·2013·Journal of Health Communication

Abstract

Web-based tailored intervention programs show considerable promise in effecting health-promoting behaviors and improving health outcomes across a variety of medical conditions and patient populations. This meta-analysis compares the effects of tailored versus nontailored web-based interventions on health behaviors and explores the influence of key moderators on treatment outcomes. Forty experimental and quasi-experimental studies (N =20,180) met criteria for inclusion and were analyzed using meta-analytic procedures. The findings indicated that web-based tailored interventions effected significantly greater improvement in health outcomes as compared with control conditions both at posttesting, d =.139 (95% CI = .111, .166, p <.001, k =40) and at follow-up, d =.158 (95% CI = .124, .192, p <.001, k =21). The authors found no evidence of publication bias. These results provided further support for the differential benefits of tailored web-based interventions over nontailored approaches. Analysis of participant/descriptive, intervention, and methodological moderators shed some light on factors that may be important to the success of tailored interventions. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10810730.2013.768727

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tailoring can improve intervention outcomes and engagement, but the size of this effect differs across studies and settings.

    “Tailoring can have a positive impact on intervention outcomes and engagement, but this varies between studies and contexts.31,52”
  • Perceived relevance and the inclusion of social support are associated with increased effect sizes in digital behavior change interventions.

    “Compared to more traditional knowledge transfer methods in digital health (eg, tailored modules), the conversational methods in virtual assistance may be perceived as more personally relevant and humanistic, which is critical given that perceived relevance and the inclusion of social support are associated with increased effect sizes in digital behavior change interventions [7,8].”
  • Tailored Web-based interventions have been recognized for statistically significant effect sizes for health behavior change among diverse populations facing chronic disease.

    “Clinically relevant results, such as adopting a healthy lifestyle or adhering to medication, and statistically significant effect sizes of tailored Web-based interventions have been recognized for health behavior change among diverse populations facing chronic disease [20,29,30].”
  • A meta-analysis on tailored Web-based interventions in general found that expert input does not necessarily mean more efficacy.

    “A meta-analysis on tailored Web-based interventions in general found that expert input does not necessarily mean more efficacy [30].”
  • It has been shown that Web-based tailored interventions that are preventive in nature and targeting a general population, not a specific condition, were more successful.

    “Hence, it has been shown that Web-based tailored interventions that are preventive in nature and targeting a general population, not a specific condition, were more successful [30].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lustria, M. L. A., Noar, S. M., Cortese, J., Van Stee, S. K., Glueckauf, R. L., & Lee, J.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
Corresponding author
Lustria, Mia Liza A.
Venue
Journal of Health Communication
Published
2013-09
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
1039-1069
ISSN
  • 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0415
OpenAlex
W2057902960
Cited by
689
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
personalized interventions, online intervention, health behavior change, health-promoting behaviors, health outcomes, treatment moderators, online health interventions
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Behavior Therapy, Child, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Program Evaluation, Health Behavior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review