Cited by 492Health Policy Implementation ScienceSmoking Behavior and CessationOptimal Experimental Design Methods

A strategy for optimizing and evaluating behavioral interventions

Collins, Linda M., Murphy, Susan A., Nair, Vijay N., Strecher, Victor J.·2005·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the optimization of behavioral interventions offers the potential of both public health and research benefits, currently there is no widely agreed-upon principled procedure for accomplishing this. PURPOSE: This article suggests a multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) for achieving the dual goals of program optimization and program evaluation in the behavioral intervention field. METHODS: MOST consists of the following three phases: (a) screening, in which randomized experimentation closely guided by theory is used to assess an array of program and/or delivery components and select the components that merit further investigation; (b) refining, in which interactions among the identified set of components and their interrelationships with covariates are investigated in detail, again via randomized experiments, and optimal dosage levels and combinations of components are identified; and (c) confirming, in which the resulting optimized intervention is evaluated by means of a standard randomized intervention trial. To make the best use of available resources, MOST relies on design and analysis tools that help maximize efficiency, such as fractional factorials. RESULTS: A slightly modified version of an actual application of MOST to develop a smoking cessation intervention is used to develop and present the ideas. CONCLUSIONS: MOST has the potential to husband program development resources while increasing our understanding of the individual program and delivery components that make up interventions. Considerations, challenges, open questions, and other potential benefits are discussed.

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 · 10.1207/s15324796abm3001_8

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Randomized controlled trials can estimate the combined causal impact of enhancement strategies, yet they are not efficient for testing each strategy separately.

    “This approach enables assessment of the causal effects of the enhancement strategies as a package. However, it is not an efficient means of evaluating the effectiveness of individual enhancement strategies (Collins et al. 2005, 2007, 2009a, 2011).”
  • In the late 2000s, Collins and colleagues introduced the multiphase optimisation strategy (MOST) framework-a strategy for developing and optimising behaviour interventions.

    “In the late 2000s, Collins and colleagues introduced the multiphase optimisation strategy (MOST) framework—a strategy for developing and optimising behaviour interventions.”
  • The MOST framework focuses on the role of different intervention components and their contribution to overall success, as complex interventions may contain inactive components.

    “The element of focus of this framework is the role of the different intervention components and their contribution to the overall success of the intervention, as complex interventions may contain inactive components [10].”
  • The MOST framework proposes a programmatic and sequenced experimental approach that can efficiently and systematically identify the most promising components, in order to assemble these in an optimised version of the intervention, which is finally tested in a RCT.

    “The framework proposes to adopt a programmatic and sequenced experimental approach that can efficiently and systematically identify the most promising components, in order to assemble these in an optimised version of the intervention, which is finally tested in a RCT.”
  • The interventions reported across the review varied widely and included a few targeting behavioural change at the individual patient level, such as weight reduction and smoking cessation programs, or at the level of healthcare professionals, such as interventions targeting general practitioners to reduce inappropriate prescribing behaviours.

    “The interventions reported across the review varied widely and included a few targeting behavioural change at the individual patient level, such as weight reduction [27] and smoking cessation programs [10, 44, 49], or at the level of healthcare professionals, such as interventions targeting general practitioners to reduce inappropriate prescribing behaviours [26, 45, 46, 48].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., Nair, V. N., & Strecher, V. J.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Collins, Linda M.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2005-08-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
65-73
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W1994319704
Cited by
492
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 24
FWCI
22.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0204247)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K02DA015674, P50-DA-10075, P50DA010075, K02-DA15674)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA101451)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
multiphase optimization strategy, program evaluation, dose optimization, fractional factorial design, smoking cessation interventions, intervention development
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Humans, Public Health, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Endpoint Determination

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