Cited by 82Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Challenges and recommendations for blinding in behavioral interventions illustrated using a case study of a behavioral intervention to lower blood pressure

Friedberg, Jennifer P., Lipsitz, Stuart R., Natarajan, Sundar·2010·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective To describe the challenges to blinding in behavioral interventions, specifically those for asymptomatic medical conditions, where the intervention is through counseling, and to provide recommendations for achieving blinding in behavioral randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods This paper reviews the challenges of preserving blinding in behavioral RCTs with a focus on interventions for asymptomatic medical conditions. This is illustrated using a case study of an ongoing behavioral intervention to improve hypertension control.Results In contrast to easily keeping study investigators and participants masked to treatment assignment through the use of identical pills or sham treatments, the need to have differing levels of blinding among study personnel and participants in randomized behavioral intervention trials is presented. Recommendations for achieving this are provided.Conclusions Despite the challenges inherent in behavioral interventions, it is possible to achieve differing levels of blinding across study personnel and participants to minimize bias and generate valid data in RCTs that test interventions for asymptomatic medical conditions such as hypertension. Modifications may be needed for RCTs in symptomatic medical conditions.Practice implications Researchers designing behavioral RCTs should be aware of the challenges to blinding all staff and study participants, and plan to have procedures in place to standardize outcome data collection and intervention delivery without compromising the varying levels of blinding. The challenges and recommendations described may need modifications in behavioral intervention studies for symptomatic conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2009.04.009

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedberg, J. P., Lipsitz, S. R., & Natarajan, S.
Affiliations
  • VA NY Harbor Healthcare System (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Friedberg, Jennifer P.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
78
Issue
1
Pages
5-11
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057956458
Cited by
82
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
FWCI
0.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (CA 74015, CA 069222, R01CA074015)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM29745, R01GM029745)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI 60373, R01AI060373)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
blinding, behavioral interventions, randomized controlled trials, hypertension control, blood pressure reduction, counseling intervention, bias mitigation
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Blood Pressure, Humans, Hypertension, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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