Literature DB >> 19254929

Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical trial for developing multicomponent behavioral interventions.

Linda M Collins1, Bibhas Chakraborty, Susan A Murphy, Victor Strecher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many interventions in today's health sciences are multicomponent, and often one or more of the components are behavioral. Two approaches to building behavioral interventions empirically can be identified. The more typically used approach, labeled here the classical approach, consists of constructing a likely best intervention a priori, and then evaluating the intervention in a standard randomized controlled trial (RCT). By contrast, the emergent phased experimental approach involves programmatic phases of empirical research and discovery aimed at identifying individual intervention component effects and the best combination of components and levels.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to provide a head-to-head comparison between the classical and phased experimental approaches and thereby highlight the relative advantages and disadvantages of these approaches when they are used to select program components and levels so as to arrive at the most potent intervention.
METHODS: A computer simulation was performed in which the classical and phased experimental approaches to intervention development were applied to the same randomly generated data.
RESULTS: The phased experimental approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the intervention effect size was medium or large, whereas the classical approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the effect size was small. The phased experimental approach led to identification of the correct set of intervention components and levels at a higher rate than the classical approach across all conditions. LIMITATIONS: Some potentially important factors were not varied in the simulation, for example the underlying structural model and the number of intervention components.
CONCLUSIONS: The phased experimental approach merits serious consideration, because it has the potential to enable intervention scientists to develop more efficacious behavioral interventions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19254929      PMCID: PMC2711350          DOI: 10.1177/1740774508100973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  31 in total

1.  Factorial designs: a graphical aid for choosing study designs accounting for interaction.

Authors:  Karen Byth; Val Gebski
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Experimental designs for multicomponent interventions among persons with multifactorial geriatric syndromes.

Authors:  Heather G Allore; Mary E Tinetti; Thomas M Gill; Peter N Peduzzi
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  A strategy for optimizing and evaluating behavioral interventions.

Authors:  Linda M Collins; Susan A Murphy; Vijay N Nair; Victor J Strecher
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2005-08

4.  A 2-arm, randomized, controlled trial of a motivational interviewing-based intervention to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among patients failing or initiating ART.

Authors:  Carol E Golin; Joanne Earp; Hsiao-Chuan Tien; Paul Stewart; Carol Porter; Lynn Howie
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.731

Review 5.  Probing the effects of individual components in multiple component prevention programs.

Authors:  S G West; L S Aiken; M Todd
Journal:  Am J Community Psychol       Date:  1993-10

6.  Parent program component analysis in a drug abuse prevention trial.

Authors:  Nathaniel R Riggs; Pamela Elfenbaum; Mary Ann Pentz
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.012

7.  Randomized controlled trial of a web-based computer-tailored smoking cessation program as a supplement to nicotine patch therapy.

Authors:  Victor J Strecher; Saul Shiffman; Robert West
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 6.526

8.  Design and analysis of trials of combination therapies.

Authors:  James D Hosking; Ron A Cisler; David J Couper; David R Gastfriend; Daniel R Kivlahan; Raymond F Anton
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Suppl       Date:  2005-07

Review 9.  Lifestyle intervention for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: putting theory to practice.

Authors:  K M Venkat Narayan; Alka M Kanaya; Edward W Gregg
Journal:  Treat Endocrinol       Date:  2003

10.  A multifactorial intervention to reduce the risk of falling among elderly people living in the community.

Authors:  M E Tinetti; D I Baker; G McAvay; E B Claus; P Garrett; M Gottschalk; M L Koch; K Trainor; R I Horwitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-09-29       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  32 in total

1.  Evaluating individual intervention components: making decisions based on the results of a factorial screening experiment.

Authors:  Linda M Collins; Jessica B Trail; Kari C Kugler; Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Robin J Mermelstein
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Moving beyond the treatment package approach to developing behavioral interventions: addressing questions that arose during an application of the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST).

Authors:  David L Wyrick; Kelly L Rulison; Melodie Fearnow-Kenney; Jeffrey J Milroy; Linda M Collins
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Introduction to SMART designs for the development of adaptive interventions: with application to weight loss research.

Authors:  Daniel Almirall; Inbal Nahum-Shani; Nancy E Sherwood; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Translational Research in South Africa: Evaluating Implementation Quality Using a Factorial Design.

Authors:  Linda L Caldwell; Edward A Smith; Linda M Collins; John W Graham; Mary Lai; Lisa Wegner; Tania Vergnani; Catherine Matthews; Joachim Jacobs
Journal:  Child Youth Care Forum       Date:  2012-04-01

5.  Preventing Smoking Progression in Young Adults: the Concept of Prevescalation.

Authors:  Andrea C Villanti; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Robin Mermelstein
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2019-04

6.  SMART Design Issues and the Consideration of Opposing Outcomes: Discussion of "Evaluation of Viable Dynamic Treatment Regimes in a Sequentially Randomized Trial of Advanced Prostate Cancer" by by Wang, Rotnitzky, Lin, Millikan, and Thall.

Authors:  Daniel Almirall; Daniel J Lizotte; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.033

7.  Toward Usable Evidence: Optimizing Knowledge Accumulation in HCI Research on Health Behavior Change.

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

8.  Microrandomized trials: An experimental design for developing just-in-time adaptive interventions.

Authors:  Predrag Klasnja; Eric B Hekler; Saul Shiffman; Audrey Boruvka; Daniel Almirall; Ambuj Tewari; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.267

9.  Design of experiments with multiple independent variables: a resource management perspective on complete and reduced factorial designs.

Authors:  Linda M Collins; John J Dziak; Runze Li
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2009-09

10.  Developing multicomponent interventions using fractional factorial designs.

Authors:  Bibhas Chakraborty; Linda M Collins; Victor J Strecher; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.