TY - JOUR
T1 - The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions
AU - Collins, Linda M.
AU - Baker, Timothy B.
AU - Mermelstein, Robin J.
AU - Piper, Megan E.
AU - Jorenby, Douglas E.
AU - Smith, Stevens S.
AU - Christiansen, Bruce A.
AU - Schlam, Tanya R.
AU - Cook, Jessica W.
AU - Fiore, Michael C.
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgment This research was supported by a grant 9P50CA143188-11 from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Collins was supported via grant P50DA10075, from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Baker was supported via NCI 1K05CA139871. Dr. Piper was supported by grant 1UL1RR025011 from the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Cook was supported by K08DA021311.
Funding Information:
As our project and a few others (e.g., [55]) have demonstrated, it is possible to obtain funding for MOST and similar approaches from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Still, obtaining research funding to implement MOST can be challenging. First, MOST rests on the conviction that useful information can be gained by examining the effects of individual intervention components, provided that experimental designs are chosen prudently. However, there are some pervasive and enduring misconceptions about experimental design (discussion of these may be found in [33] and [35]) that may lead some reviewers of grant proposals to make the unwarranted assumption that examination of individual intervention components with acceptable statistical power is not feasible. Of course, it is up to the applicant to offer a compelling argument for feasibility in a grant proposal; we hope that when presented with such arguments reviewers will keep an open mind.
Funding Information:
Conflicts of Interest Linda M. Collins, Timothy B. Baker, Robin Mermelstein, Megan E. Piper, Stevens S. Smith, Bruce A. Christiansen, Tanya R. Schlam, and Jessica W. Cook have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Douglas E. Jorenby has received research support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Cancer Institute, Pfizer, Inc., Sanofi-Synthelabo, and Nabi Biopharmaceuticals. He has received support for educational activities from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Veterans Administration and consulting fees from Nabi Biopharmaceuticals. Over the last 3 years, Michael C. Fiore served as an investigator on research studies at the University of Wisconsin that were funded by Nabi Biopharmaceuticals.
PY - 2011/4
Y1 - 2011/4
N2 - The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is a new methodological approach for building, optimizing, and evaluating multicomponent interventions. Conceptually rooted in engineering, MOST emphasizes efficiency and careful management of resources to move intervention science forward steadily and incrementally. MOST can be used to guide the evaluation of research evidence, develop an optimal intervention (the best set of intervention components), and enhance the translation of research findings, particularly type II translation. This article uses an ongoing study to illustrate the application of MOST in the evaluation of diverse intervention components derived from the phase-based framework reviewed in the companion article by Baker et al. (Ann Behav Med, in press, 2011). The article also discusses considerations, challenges, and potential benefits associated with using MOST and similar principled approaches to improving intervention efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The applicability of this methodology may extend beyond smoking cessation to the development of behavioral interventions for other chronic health challenges.
AB - The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is a new methodological approach for building, optimizing, and evaluating multicomponent interventions. Conceptually rooted in engineering, MOST emphasizes efficiency and careful management of resources to move intervention science forward steadily and incrementally. MOST can be used to guide the evaluation of research evidence, develop an optimal intervention (the best set of intervention components), and enhance the translation of research findings, particularly type II translation. This article uses an ongoing study to illustrate the application of MOST in the evaluation of diverse intervention components derived from the phase-based framework reviewed in the companion article by Baker et al. (Ann Behav Med, in press, 2011). The article also discusses considerations, challenges, and potential benefits associated with using MOST and similar principled approaches to improving intervention efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The applicability of this methodology may extend beyond smoking cessation to the development of behavioral interventions for other chronic health challenges.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/79958754975
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/79958754975#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1007/s12160-010-9253-x
DO - 10.1007/s12160-010-9253-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 21132416
AN - SCOPUS:79958754975
SN - 0883-6612
VL - 41
SP - 208
EP - 226
JO - Annals of Behavioral Medicine
JF - Annals of Behavioral Medicine
IS - 2
ER -
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being