OBJECTIVE: Attention control (AC) conditions are used to balance nonspecific attention in randomized trials of behavioral interventions. Very little guidance about which behavioral interventions and outcomes merit AC is available in the literature. The primary aim of the present study is to demonstrate a scenario in which use of AC in a behavioral randomized trial was unnecessary and possibly detrimental. METHODS: Exploratory analyses were performed in a randomized controlled trial that tested whether a patient-centered counseling intervention reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in 355 participants with peripheral arterial disease, compared with AC and usual care (UC) conditions. The patient-centered counseling intervention was designed to activate participants to ask their physician for lipid-lowering medication and/or increase dose intensity, increase medication adherence, and reduce fat intake. The AC condition involved attention-matched telephone-delivered health education, and the UC condition consisted of an educational pamphlet. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol changes were -11.1 and -6.8 mg/dL in the UC and AC conditions, respectively (p=.17). The proportion of participants who increased the use or dose intensity of medication was significantly lower in AC than in UC: 17.5% versus 30.5% (p=.03). No significant difference in other outcomes was observed between AC and UC. CONCLUSIONS: AC has significantly worse medication outcomes, and there is no indication of a therapeutic effect on other end points. Implications for the use of AC in behavioral randomized trials are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00217919.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Attention control (AC) conditions are used to balance nonspecific attention in randomized trials of behavioral interventions. Very little guidance about which behavioral interventions and outcomes merit AC is available in the literature. The primary aim of the present study is to demonstrate a scenario in which use of AC in a behavioral randomized trial was unnecessary and possibly detrimental. METHODS: Exploratory analyses were performed in a randomized controlled trial that tested whether a patient-centered counseling intervention reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in 355 participants with peripheral arterial disease, compared with AC and usual care (UC) conditions. The patient-centered counseling intervention was designed to activate participants to ask their physician for lipid-lowering medication and/or increase dose intensity, increase medication adherence, and reduce fat intake. The AC condition involved attention-matched telephone-delivered health education, and the UC condition consisted of an educational pamphlet. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol changes were -11.1 and -6.8 mg/dL in the UC and AC conditions, respectively (p=.17). The proportion of participants who increased the use or dose intensity of medication was significantly lower in AC than in UC: 17.5% versus 30.5% (p=.03). No significant difference in other outcomes was observed between AC and UC. CONCLUSIONS:AC has significantly worse medication outcomes, and there is no indication of a therapeutic effect on other end points. Implications for the use of AC in behavioral randomized trials are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00217919.
Authors: Elaine C Moreland; Lisa K Volkening; Margaret T Lawlor; Karen A Chalmers; Barbara J Anderson; Lori M B Laffel Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-27
Authors: Mary M McDermott; George Reed; Philip Greenland; Kathy M Mazor; Sherry Pagoto; Judith K Ockene; Rex Graff; Philip A Merriam; Kathy Leung; Larry Manheim; Melina R Kibbe; Barbara Olendzki; William H Pearce; Ira S Ockene Journal: Am J Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Erik Hedman; Gerhard Andersson; Erik Andersson; Brjánn Ljótsson; Christian Rück; Gordon J G Asmundson; Nils Lindefors Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Thomas K Houston; Jeroan J Allison; Marc Sussman; Wendy Horn; Cheryl L Holt; John Trobaugh; Maribel Salas; Maria Pisu; Yendelela L Cuffee; Damien Larkin; Sharina D Person; Bruce Barton; Catarina I Kiefe; Sandral Hullett Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David C Mohr; Joyce Ho; Tae L Hart; Kelly G Baron; Mark Berendsen; Victoria Beckner; Xuan Cai; Pim Cuijpers; Bonnie Spring; Sarah W Kinsinger; Kerstin E Schroder; Jenna Duffecy Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: James R Hébert; Edward A Frongillo; Swann A Adams; Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievy; Thomas G Hurley; Donald R Miller; Ira S Ockene Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Philip J Morgan; Jacqueline A Grounds; Lee M Ashton; Clare E Collins; Alyce T Barnes; Emma R Pollock; Stevie-Lee Kennedy; Anna T Rayward; Kristen L Saunders; Ryan J Drew; Myles D Young Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Mariya Kovaleva; Joe R Nocera; Kenneth Hepburn; Melinda Higgins; Rachel Nash; Fayron Epps; Glenna Brewster; Elizabeth Bilsborough; Amy A Blumling; Patricia C Griffiths Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Philip J Morgan; Rachel A Jones; Clare E Collins; Kylie D Hesketh; Myles D Young; Tracy L Burrows; Anthea M Magarey; Helen L Brown; Trina Hinkley; Rebecca A Perry; Leah Brennan; Alison C Spence; Karen J Campbell Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2016-11-08
Authors: Carol Byrd-Bredbenner; FanFan Wu; Kim Spaccarotella; Virginia Quick; Jennifer Martin-Biggers; Yingting Zhang Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Jun Ma; Peg Strub; Phillip W Lavori; A Sonia Buist; Carlos A Camargo; Kari C Nadeau; Sandra R Wilson; Lan Xiao Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 2.226