Kenneth E Freedland1, Abby C King2, Walter T Ambrosius3, Evan Mayo-Wilson4, David C Mohr5, Susan M Czajkowski6, Lehana Thabane7, Linda M Collins8, George W Rebok4, Shaun P Treweek9, Thomas D Cook10, Jack D Edinger11, Catherine M Stoney12, Rebecca A Campo13, Deborah Young-Hyman13, William T Riley13. 1. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: freedlak@wustl.edu. 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 4. Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. McMaster University Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 8. Pennsylvania State University College of Health and Human Development, University Park, PA, USA. 9. University of Aberdeen Health Services Research Unit, Aberdeen, Scotland. 10. Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research, Evanston, IL, USA. 11. National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA. 12. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 13. National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide recommendations for the selection of comparators for randomized controlled trials of health-related behavioral interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research convened an expert panel to critically review the literature on control or comparison groups for behavioral trials and to develop strategies for improving comparator choices and for resolving controversies and disagreements about comparators. RESULTS: The panel developed a Pragmatic Model for Comparator Selection in Health-Related Behavioral Trials. The model indicates that the optimal comparator is the one that best serves the primary purpose of the trial but that the optimal comparator's limitations and barriers to its use must also be taken into account. CONCLUSION: We developed best practice recommendations for the selection of comparators for health-related behavioral trials. Use of the Pragmatic Model for Comparator Selection in Health-Related Behavioral Trials can improve the comparator selection process and help resolve disagreements about comparator choices.
OBJECTIVES: To provide recommendations for the selection of comparators for randomized controlled trials of health-related behavioral interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research convened an expert panel to critically review the literature on control or comparison groups for behavioral trials and to develop strategies for improving comparator choices and for resolving controversies and disagreements about comparators. RESULTS: The panel developed a Pragmatic Model for Comparator Selection in Health-Related Behavioral Trials. The model indicates that the optimal comparator is the one that best serves the primary purpose of the trial but that the optimal comparator's limitations and barriers to its use must also be taken into account. CONCLUSION: We developed best practice recommendations for the selection of comparators for health-related behavioral trials. Use of the Pragmatic Model for Comparator Selection in Health-Related Behavioral Trials can improve the comparator selection process and help resolve disagreements about comparator choices.
Keywords:
Behavioral research; Comparative effectiveness research; Control groups; Health behavior; Psychotherapy; Randomized controlled trials as topic; Research design
Authors: David C Mohr; Bonnie Spring; Kenneth E Freedland; Victoria Beckner; Patricia Arean; Steven D Hollon; Judith Ockene; Robert Kaplan Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2009-07-11 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: A M Glenny; D G Altman; F Song; C Sakarovitch; J J Deeks; R D'Amico; M Bradburn; A J Eastwood Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Linda M Collins; Timothy B Baker; Robin J Mermelstein; 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: Dennis S Charney; Charles B Nemeroff; Lydia Lewis; Sally K Laden; Jack M Gorman; Eugene M Laska; Michael Borenstein; Charles L Bowden; Arthur Caplan; Graham J Emslie; Dwight L Evans; Barbara Geller; Lenore E Grabowski; Jay Herson; Ned H Kalin; Paul E Keck; Irving Kirsch; K Ranga R Krishnan; David J Kupfer; Robert W Makuch; Franklin G Miller; Herbert Pardes; Robert Post; Mildred M Reynolds; Laura Roberts; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; Donald L Rosenstein; David R Rubinow; A John Rush; Neal D Ryan; Gary S Sachs; Alan F Schatzberg; Susan Solomon Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2002-03
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Corrine I Voils; Rachel Adler; Elizabeth Strawbridge; Janet Grubber; Kelli D Allen; Maren K Olsen; Megan A McVay; Sridharan Raghavan; Susan D Raffa; Luke M Funk Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Kelly Glazer Baron; Jennifer Duffecy; DeJuran Richardson; Elizabeth Avery; Steven Rothschild; Johan Lane Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Sheila F Castañeda; Linda C Gallo; Melawhy L Garcia; Paulina M Mendoza; Angela P Gutierrez; Maria Lopez-Gurolla; Scott Roesch; Margaret S Pichardo; Fatima Muñoz; Gregory A Talavera Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Susan D Brown; Michael Baiocchi; Jessica L Bibeau; Jennifer Daubenmier; Assiamira Ferrara; Maren N Galarce; Wendy Hartogensis; Frederick M Hecht; Monique M Hedderson; Patricia J Moran; Sherry L Pagoto; Ai-Lin Tsai; Molly E Waring; Michaela Kiernan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Franziska Holtdirk; Anja Mehnert; Mario Weiss; Johannes Mayer; Björn Meyer; Peter Bröde; Maren Claus; Carsten Watzl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240