Skip to main content
Log in

Approaches for Informing Optimal Dose of Behavioral Interventions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

There is little guidance about to how select dose parameter values when designing behavioral interventions.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to present approaches to inform intervention duration, frequency, and amount when (1) the investigator has no a priori expectation and is seeking a descriptive approach for identifying and narrowing the universe of dose values or (2) the investigator has an a priori expectation and is seeking validation of this expectation using an inferential approach.

Methods

Strengths and weaknesses of various approaches are described and illustrated with examples.

Results

Descriptive approaches include retrospective analysis of data from randomized trials, assessment of perceived optimal dose via prospective surveys or interviews of key stakeholders, and assessment of target patient behavior via prospective, longitudinal, observational studies. Inferential approaches include nonrandomized, early-phase trials and randomized designs.

Conclusions

By utilizing these approaches, researchers may more efficiently apply resources to identify the optimal values of dose parameters for behavioral interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Voils CI, Chang YK, Crandell JL, et al.: Informing the dosing of interventions in randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012.

  2. Manojlovich M, Sidani S. Nurse dose: What’s in a concept? Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31: 310-319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lilienfeld SO. Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007; 2: 53-70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins LM, Baker TB, Mermelstein RJ, et al. The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 41: 208-226.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins LM, Murphy SA, Strecher V. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): New methods for more potent eHealth interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32: S112-S118.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Waters LA, Winkler EA, Reeves MM, Fjeldsoe BS, Eakin EG. The impact of behavioural screening on intervention outcomes in a randomised, controlled multiple behaviour intervention trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity. 2011; 8: 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dickens C, Cherrington A, Adeyemi I, et al.: Characteristics of psychological interventions that improve depression in people with coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-regression. Psychomsomatic Medicine. 2013, epub ahead of print.

  8. Moyer VA. Screening for and management of obesity in adults: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 373-378.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Services CfMaM: 2012 Obesity Counseling Reimbursement Fact Sheet. from http://www.ethicon.com/sites/default/files/Specialty/Bariatric%20Surgery/rhcp/2012-obesity-counseling-reimbursement-fact-sheet.pdf

  10. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al.: Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In J. P. T. Higgins and S. Green (eds), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Vol. 5.1.0), 2011.

  11. Krumholz HM, Selby JV. Seeing through the eyes of patients: The patient-centered outcomes research institute funding announcements. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 446-447.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yancy W Jr, Westman E, McDuffie J, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus orlistat plus a low-fat diet for weight loss. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 136-145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Willis G. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ram N, Gerstorf D. Time-structured and net intraindividual variability: Tools for examining the development of dynamic characteristics and processes. Psychol Aging. 2009; 24: 778-791.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nesselroade JR. The warp and woof of the developmental fabric. In: Downs R, Liben L, Palermo D, eds. Visions of development, the environment, and aesthetics: The legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwil. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1991: 213-240.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sliwinski M. Measurement burse designs for social health research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008; 2: 245-261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wagner GJ, Ghosh-Dastidar B. Electronic monitoring: Adherence assessment or intervention? HIV Clin Trials. 2002; 3: 45-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Onzenoort HA, Menger FE, Neef C, et al. Participation in a clinical trial enhances adherence and persistence to treatment: A retrospective cohort study. Hypertension. 2011; 58: 573-578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Berg KM, Arnsten JH. Practical and conceptual challenges in measuring antiretroviral adherence. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. 2006; 43(Suppl 1): S79-S87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Garrett-Mayer E. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: A tutorial. Clinical Trials. 2006; 3: 57-71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Le Tourneau C, Lee JJ, Siu LL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101: 708-720.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cheung Y, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics. 2000; 56: 1177-1182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hu C, Cheung Y. On the efficiency of nonparametric variance estimation in sequential dose-finding. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 2012; 143: 593-602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen Z, Tighiouart M, Kowalski J. Dose escalation with overdose control using a quasi-continuous toxicity score in cancer phase I clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2012; 33: 949-959.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thall P, Cook J. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics. 2004; 60: 684-693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Toseland R, Blachard C, McCallion P. A problem solving intervetnion for caregivers of cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 40: 517-528.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Spertus J, Peterson E, Conard M, et al. Monitoring clinical changes in patients with heart failure: A comparison of methods. Am Heart J. 2005; 150: 707-715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Howard KI, Kopta SM, Krause MS, Orlinsky DE. The dose-effect relationship in psychotherapy. Am Psychol. 1986; 41: 159-164.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fisher R. The arrangement fo field experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain. 1926; 33: 503-513.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Collins LM, Dziak JJ, Li R. Design of experiments with multiple independent variables: A resource managemetn perspective on complete and reduced factorial designs. Psychol Methods. 2009; 14: 202-224.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gabler N, Duan N, Vohra S, Kravitz R. N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: A systematic review. Med Care. 2011; 49: 761-768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Larson E. N-of-1 trials: A new future? J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25: 891-892.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, McGinn T. N-of-1 randomized controlled trials: Study design. In: Guyatt GH, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D, eds. Users’ guides to the medical literature. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2008: 179-192.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lei H, Nahum-Shani I, Lynch K, Oslin D, Murphy SA. A “SMART” design for building individualized treatment sequences. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012; 8: 21-48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, et al. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007; 2: 40-49.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moyers T, Martin T, Manuel J, Hendrickson S, Miller W. Assessing competence in the use of motivational interviewing. J Subst Abus Treat. 2005; 28: 19-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Song M, Happy M, Sandelowski M. Development of a tool to assess fidelity to a psychoeducational intervention. J Adv Nurs. 2010; 66: 673-682.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lorencatto F, West R, Christopherson C, Michie S. Assessing fidelity of delivery of smoking cessation behavioural support in practice. Implement Sci. 2013; 8: 40.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol. 2008; 27: 379-387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Volpp KG, Gurmankin Levy A, Asch DA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006; 15: 12-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Burns RJ, Donovan AS, Ackermann RT, et al. A theoretically grounded systematic review of material incentives for weight loss: Implications for interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2012; 44: 375-388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article was supported by a post-doctoral fellowship to Dr. King from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Academic Affiliations, Health Services Research and Development (HSR and D) Service (TPP 21–020), a Research Career Scientist award from HSR and D to Dr. Maciejewski (RCS 10–391), and with resources and facilities of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, NC. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards Authors Voils, King, Allen, Yancy, and Shaffer declare that they have no conflict of interest. Dr. Maciejewski has received consultation funds from Daichi Sankyo and ResDAC at the University of Minnesota, and owns stock in Amgen due to his spouse’s employment. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corrine I. Voils PhD.

About this article

Cite this article

Voils, C.I., King, H.A., Maciejewski, M.L. et al. Approaches for Informing Optimal Dose of Behavioral Interventions. ann. behav. med. 48, 392–401 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9618-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9618-7

Keywords

Navigation