ECONOMIC VALUE OF PERSONALIZED LIFESTYLE INTERVENTIONS: MAPPING THE EVIDENCE
Author(s)
Marat Sultanov, PhD1, Rineke Baas, MS2, Arie Dijkstra, PhD3, Michiel Reneman, PhD4, Claudine Lamoth, PhD2, Erja Portegijs, PhD2, Jurjen van der Schans, PhD1.
1Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 2Department of Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 3Social Psychology Unit, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
1Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 2Department of Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 3Social Psychology Unit, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
OBJECTIVES: Personalized approaches offer an alternative to one-size-fits-all lifestyle interventions, promising improved outcomes and cost savings. However, the evidence base of personalized lifestyle interventions is heterogeneous in terms of methodologies, target populations, and inconsistent terminology of personalization. In addition, there is a lack of reviews of economic evaluations of personalized lifestyle interventions to inform potential implementation decisions. We aimed to identify and describe the available evidence on the economic value of personalized lifestyle interventions, using a broad definition of personalization, for five lifestyle themes (physical activity, smoking, alcohol, diet and mental well-being).
METHODS: A rapid scoping review of literature was conducted in May-August 2025. After title & abstract screening (n=2932) and full-text screening (n=277), a total of 94 studies were included. Data related to personalization features and evaluation outcomes were extracted.
RESULTS: Various terms were used to refer to personalization, including “tailored” (n=50), “personalized” (n=37), “individualized” (n=21), “individually tailored” (n=17) and “computer-tailored” (n=10). 38 studies focused on more than one lifestyle theme, with physical activity and diet targeted in the majority of these studies (n=34). In terms of economic outcomes, the majority of studies (n=64, 68%) found the personalized intervention to be preferable versus non-personalized comparators. These outcomes were mostly expressed in relation to quality-adjusted / disability-adjusted life years (n=56), or specific intervention outcomes (n=40), such as weight loss units.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the evidence gaps that need to be addressed to improve the quality of evidence, and inform implementation and evaluation of personalized lifestyle interventions. In particular, inconsistencies in definition and description of personalization complicate evidence synthesis. In addition, cost details of personalization are often lacking, preventing separation of the value of personalization from the overall value of the intervention. Most studies did not extend the evaluation beyond the follow-up trial period, limiting their potential relevance to decision-making by ignoring long-term effects.
METHODS: A rapid scoping review of literature was conducted in May-August 2025. After title & abstract screening (n=2932) and full-text screening (n=277), a total of 94 studies were included. Data related to personalization features and evaluation outcomes were extracted.
RESULTS: Various terms were used to refer to personalization, including “tailored” (n=50), “personalized” (n=37), “individualized” (n=21), “individually tailored” (n=17) and “computer-tailored” (n=10). 38 studies focused on more than one lifestyle theme, with physical activity and diet targeted in the majority of these studies (n=34). In terms of economic outcomes, the majority of studies (n=64, 68%) found the personalized intervention to be preferable versus non-personalized comparators. These outcomes were mostly expressed in relation to quality-adjusted / disability-adjusted life years (n=56), or specific intervention outcomes (n=40), such as weight loss units.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the evidence gaps that need to be addressed to improve the quality of evidence, and inform implementation and evaluation of personalized lifestyle interventions. In particular, inconsistencies in definition and description of personalization complicate evidence synthesis. In addition, cost details of personalization are often lacking, preventing separation of the value of personalization from the overall value of the intervention. Most studies did not extend the evaluation beyond the follow-up trial period, limiting their potential relevance to decision-making by ignoring long-term effects.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE456
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Epidemiology & Public Health
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas