Cited by 28Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareHealth Policy Implementation Science

Applying the Multiphase Optimization Strategy for the Development of Optimized Interventions in Palliative Care

Open access
Wells, Rachel D., Guastaferro, Kate, Azuero, Andres, Rini, Christine, Hendricks, Bailey A., Dosse, Chinara, Taylor, Richard, Williams, Grant R. +6 more·2021·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported positive benefit of multicomponent "bundled" palliative care interventions for patients and family caregivers while highlighting limitations in determining key elements and mechanisms of improvement. Traditional research approaches, such as the randomized controlled trial (RCT), typically treat interventions as "bundled" treatment packages, making it difficult to assess definitively which aspects of an intervention can be reduced or replaced or whether there are synergistic or antagonistic interactions between intervention components. Progressing toward palliative care interventions that are effective, efficient, and scalable will require new strategies and novel approaches. One such approach is the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST), a framework informed by engineering principles, that uses a systematic process to empirically identify an intervention comprised of components that positively contribute to desired outcomes under real-life constraints. This article provides a brief overview and application of MOST and factorial trial design in palliative care research, including our insights from conducting a pilot factorial trial of an early palliative care intervention to enhance the decision support skills of advanced cancer family caregivers (Project CASCADE).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.11.017

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The minimally distressed sample contrasts with other caregiving trials that had better outcomes with a more distressed sample; for example, the Forst et al. trial had mean baseline HADS anxiety scores above 11 and used GAD-7 ≥5 as eligibility.

    “Our minimally distressed sample contrasts with other caregiving trials that had better outcomes with a more distressed sample; for example, a recent trial by Forst and colleagues35 of an effective behavioral health specialist–led telehealth intervention for caregivers of patients with primary malignant brain tumors consisted of a sample where the mean baseline HADS anxiety scores in both groups”

    From Palliative Care Coaching for Family Caregivers of Patients With Advanced Cancer (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [27]Collins LM, ed. Optimization of Behavioral, Biobehavioral, and Biomedical Interventions: The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST). Springer, 2018:: 17.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wells, R. D., Guastaferro, K., Azuero, A., Rini, C., Hendricks, B. A., Dosse, C., Taylor, R., Williams, G. R., Engler, S., Smith, C., Sudore, R., Rosenberg, A. R., Bakitas, M. A., & Dionne-Odom, J. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Wells, Rachel D.
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-07
Volume
62
Issue
1
Pages
174-182
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3107432668
Cited by
28
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Palliative Care Research Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
multiphase optimization strategy, palliative care interventions, factorial design, early palliative care, advanced cancer, family caregivers
MeSH terms
Humans, Palliative Care, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Caregivers, Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review