Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Moving beyond the treatment package approach to developing behavioral interventions: addressing questions that arose during an application of the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST)

  • Original research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

ABSTRACT

Given current pressures to increase the public health contributions of behavioral interventions, intervention scientists may wish to consider moving beyond the classical treatment package approach that focuses primarily on achieving statistical significance. They may wish also to focus on goals directly related to optimizing public health impact. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) is an innovative methodological framework that draws on engineering principles to achieve more potent behavioral interventions. MOST is increasingly being adopted by intervention scientists seeking a systematic framework to engineer an optimized intervention. As with any innovation, there are challenges that arise with early adoption. This article describes the solutions to several critical questions that we addressed during the first-ever iterative application of MOST. Specifically, we describe how we have applied MOST to optimize an online program (myPlaybook) for the prevention of substance use among college student-athletes. Our application of MOST can serve as a blueprint for other intervention scientists who wish to design optimized behavioral interventions. We believe using MOST is feasible and has the potential to dramatically improve program effectiveness thereby advancing the public health impact of behavioral interventions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collins LM, Murphy SA, Nair VN, Strecher VJ. A strategy for optimizing and evaluating behavioral interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2005; 30: 65-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Collins LM, Murphy SA, Strecher VJ. 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(5 Suppl): S112-S118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Collins LM, Baker TB, Mermelstein RJ, et al. The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions. Ann Beh Med. 2011; 41(2): 208-226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins LM, Chakraborty B, Murphy SA, Strecher V. Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical. Clin Trials. 2009; 6(1): 5-15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Strecher VJ, McClure JB, Alexander GL, et al. Web-based smoking-cessation programs: results of a randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 34(5): 373-381.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Caldwell LL, Smith EA, Collins LM, et al. Translational research in South Africa: evaluating implementation quality using a factorial design. Child Youth Care Forum. 2012; 41: 119-136.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. McClure J, Derry H, Riggs K, et al. Questions about quitting (Q2): design and methods of a multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) randomized screening experiment for an online, motivational smoking cessation intervention. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012; 33(5): 1094-1102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Doumas DM, Haustveit T, Coll KM. Reducing heavy drinking among first year intercollegiate athletes: a randomized controlled trial of web-based normative feedback. J Appl Sport Psych. 2010; 22(3): 247-261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Turrisi R, Larimer M, Mallett K, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating a combined alcohol intervention for high-risk college students. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009; 70(4): 555-567.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yusko DA, Buckman JF, White HR, Pandina RJ. Alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and performance enhancers: a comparison of use by college student athletes and nonathletes. J Am Coll Health. 2008; 57(3): 281-290.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yusko DA, Buckman JF, White HR, Pandina RJ. Risk for excessive alcohol use and drinking-related problems in college student athletes. Addict Beh. 2008; 33(12): 1546-1556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hansen W, Dusenbury L, Bishop D, Derzon J. Substance abuse prevention program content: systematizing the classification of what programs target for change. Health Educ Res. 2007; 22(3): 351-360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berkowitz AD. An overview of the social norms approach. In: Lederman LC, Stewar LP, eds. Changing the culture of college drinking. Cresskill: Hampton; 2004: 193-214.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Perkins HW. The emergence and evolution of the social norms approach to substance abuse prevention. In: Perkins HW, ed. The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: a handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003: 3-18.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Becker MH, Radius SM, Rosenstock IM, Drachman RH, Schuberth KC, Teets KC. Compliance with a medical regimen for asthma: a test of the health belief model. Public Health Rep. 1978; 93(3): 268-277.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Behav. 1974; 2(4): 328-335.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, vol. 278. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Neighbors C, Lewis MA, Atkins DC, et al. Efficacy of web-based personalized normative feedback: a two-year randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psych. 2010; 78(6): 898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Collins LM, Dziak JJ, Li R. Design of experiments with multiple independent variables: a resource management perspective on complete and reduced factorial designs. Psych Methods. 2009; 14(3): 202-224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu C-F, Hamada M. Experiments: planning, analysis, and parameter design optimization. New York: Wiley; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chakraborty B, Collins LM, Strecher VJ, Murphy SA. Developing multicomponent interventions using fractional factorial designs. Stat Med. 2009; 28(21): 2687-2708.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nair V, Strecher V, Fagerlin A, et al. Screening experiments and the use of fractional factorial designs in behavioral intervention research. Am J Pub Health. 2008; 98(8): 1354-1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dziak JJ, Nahum-Shani I, Collins LM. Multilevel factorial experiments for developing behavioral interventions: power, sample size, and resource considerations. Psych Methods. 2012; 17(2): 153-175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. FactorialPowerPlan [computer program]. Version 1.0. University Park: The Methodology Center, The Pennsylvania State University; 2013.

  26. Chiauzzi E, Green TC, Lord S, Thum C, Goldstein M. My student body: a high-risk drinking prevention web site for college students. J Am Coll Health. 2005; 53(6): 263-274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): 3R44DA023735.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 437 HHP Building, Walker Avenue, Greensboro, NC, 27402, USA

    David L Wyrick PhD, Kelly L Rulison PhD & Jeffrey J Milroy DrPH

  2. Prevention Strategies, LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Melodie Fearnow-Kenney PhD

  3. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Linda M Collins PhD

Authors
  1. David L Wyrick PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly L Rulison PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melodie Fearnow-Kenney PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey J Milroy DrPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Linda M Collins PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L Wyrick PhD.

Additional information

Implications

Research: Researchers should move beyond the “treatment package” approach to intervention development and evaluation and explore ways to optimize behavioral interventions to maximize public health impact.

Practice: Intervention scientists should investigate iterative approaches to intervention development that incorporate systematic and resource efficient principles of product engineering.

Policy: Resources should be committed to support behavioral interventions that have been optimized to a specific and meaningful criterion.

About this article

Cite this article

Wyrick, D.L., Rulison, K.L., Fearnow-Kenney, M. et al. Moving beyond the treatment package approach to developing behavioral interventions: addressing questions that arose during an application of the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST). Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 4, 252–259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0247-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0247-7

KEYWORDS

Search

Navigation