Adaptation, personalization and capacity in mental health treatments: a balancing act?

Abstract

Purpose of review: There are increasing calls for mental health treatments to be adapted for different groups to maximize their acceptability and benefit to patients. However, adaptations can be costly to develop and evaluate, difficult to implement in routine clinical practice and may reduce service capacity at a time when there is unprecedented unmet need. An alternative method is personalization on an individual level. This review provides an overview of the issues related to personalization and adaptation of mental health interventions.

Recent findings: Several terms have been used to describe changes to existing therapies, these reflect different extents to which existing treatments have been changed. Evidence-based practice and modular therapies allow a level of flexibility within intervention delivery without formal changes and not all changes to therapy should be considered as a new/adapted treatment but instead regarded as 'metacompetence'. Implementing existing interventions in new contexts is preferable to developing new interventions in many instances. New guidance outlines how researchers can adapt and transfer interventions to varied contexts.

Summary: The review provides proposed definitions of different changes to therapy. Modified and personalized treatments may improve acceptability to patients whilst maximizing implementation of evidence-based practice within clinical services.