BACKGROUND: Although the optimization of behavioral interventions offers the potential of both public health and research benefits, currently there is no widely agreed-upon principled procedure for accomplishing this. PURPOSE: This article suggests a multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) for achieving the dual goals of program optimization and program evaluation in the behavioral intervention field. METHODS: MOST consists of the following three phases: (a) screening, in which randomized experimentation closely guided by theory is used to assess an array of program and/or delivery components and select the components that merit further investigation; (b) refining, in which interactions among the identified set of components and their interrelationships with covariates are investigated in detail, again via randomized experiments, and optimal dosage levels and combinations of components are identified; and (c) confirming, in which the resulting optimized intervention is evaluated by means of a standard randomized intervention trial. To make the best use of available resources, MOST relies on design and analysis tools that help maximize efficiency, such as fractional factorials. RESULTS: A slightly modified version of an actual application of MOST to develop a smoking cessation intervention is used to develop and present the ideas. CONCLUSIONS: MOST has the potential to husband program development resources while increasing our understanding of the individual program and delivery components that make up interventions. Considerations, challenges, open questions, and other potential benefits are discussed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although the optimization of behavioral interventions offers the potential of both public health and research benefits, currently there is no widely agreed-upon principled procedure for accomplishing this. PURPOSE: This article suggests a multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) for achieving the dual goals of program optimization and program evaluation in the behavioral intervention field. METHODS: MOST consists of the following three phases: (a) screening, in which randomized experimentation closely guided by theory is used to assess an array of program and/or delivery components and select the components that merit further investigation; (b) refining, in which interactions among the identified set of components and their interrelationships with covariates are investigated in detail, again via randomized experiments, and optimal dosage levels and combinations of components are identified; and (c) confirming, in which the resulting optimized intervention is evaluated by means of a standard randomized intervention trial. To make the best use of available resources, MOST relies on design and analysis tools that help maximize efficiency, such as fractional factorials. RESULTS: A slightly modified version of an actual application of MOST to develop a smoking cessation intervention is used to develop and present the ideas. CONCLUSIONS: MOST has the potential to husband program development resources while increasing our understanding of the individual program and delivery components that make up interventions. Considerations, challenges, open questions, and other potential benefits are discussed.
Authors: Daniel Clark; Lisa Chrysler; Anthony Perkins; Nicole R Keith; Deanna R Willis; Greg Abernathy; Faye Smith Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2010-05
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Robin Mermelstein; Linda M Collins; Megan E Piper; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Bruce A Christiansen; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Michael C Fiore Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-04
Authors: J B McClure; H Derry; K R Riggs; E W Westbrook; J St John; S M Shortreed; A Bogart; L C An Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Stephanie P Goldstein; Brittney C Evans; Daniel Flack; Adrienne Juarascio; Stephanie Manasse; Fengqing Zhang; Evan M Forman Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2017-10
Authors: Gregory J McHugo; Robert E Drake; Mary F Brunette; Haiyi Xie; Susan M Essock; Alan I Green Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2006-07-18 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Predrag Klasnja; Eric B Hekler; Elizabeth V Korinek; John Harlow; Sonali R Mishra Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2017-05
Authors: C Hendricks Brown; Thomas R Ten Have; Booil Jo; Getachew Dagne; Peter A Wyman; Bengt Muthén; Robert D Gibbons Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2009 Impact factor: 21.981