Decision-making in the multiphase optimization strategy: Applying decision analysis for intervention value efficiency to optimize an information leaflet to promote key antecedents of medication adherence.

Advances in the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) have suggested a new approach, decision analysis for intervention value efficiency (DAIVE), for selecting an optimized intervention based on the results of a factorial optimization trial. The new approach opens possibilities to select optimized interventions based on multiple valued outcomes. We applied DAIVE to identify an optimized information leaflet intended to support eventual adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with breast cancer. We used empirical performance data for five candidate leaflet components on three hypothesized antecedents of adherence: beliefs about the medication, objective knowledge about AET, and satisfaction with medication information. Using data from a 25 factorial trial (n = 1603), we applied the following steps: (i) We used Bayesian factorial analysis of variance to estimate main and interaction effects for the five factors on the three outcomes. (ii) We used posterior distributions for main and interaction effects to estimate expected outcomes for each leaflet version (32 total). (iii) We scaled and combined outcomes using a linear value function with predetermined weights indicating the relative importance of outcomes. (iv) We identified the leaflet that maximized the value function as the optimized leaflet, and we systematically varied outcome weights to explore robustness. The optimized leaflet included two candidate components, side-effects, and patient input, set to their higher levels. Selection was generally robust to weight variations consistent with the initial preferences for three outcomes. DAIVE enables selection of optimized interventions with the best-expected performance on multiple outcomes.

Intervention optimization involves using data from an optimization trial to select the combination of intervention components that are expected to successfully balance effectiveness (i.e. improving an outcome in the desired direction) with efficiency (i.e. producing a good outcome without wasting resources). Recently, a new method for selecting optimized interventions has been proposed that has a number of advantages, including the ability to use empirical information about more than one outcome variable of interest. Here, we applied this new method to identify an optimized information leaflet designed to support eventual medication adherence in women with breast cancer, using empirical information about three outcome variables that are thought to be important for later medication adherence: beliefs about the medication, objective knowledge about the medication, and satisfaction with the leaflet information. When we let beliefs about the medication be most important; knowledge about the medication to be half as important as beliefs; and satisfaction with information to be half as important as knowledge, the optimized leaflet included enhanced information about side-effects and photos and quotes from women with breast cancer. This decision remained generally the same when we systematically varied the weights used to give outcomes their relative importance.

What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments.

AIM: To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence. DESIGN: Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART). SETTING: Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment. INTERVENTIONS: In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months. MEASUREMENTS: The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects. FINDINGS: Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Approaches in Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Americans of lower SES use tobacco products at disproportionately high rates and are over-represented as patients of emergency departments. Accordingly, emergency department visits are an ideal time to initiate tobacco treatment and aftercare for this vulnerable and understudied population. This research estimates the costs per quit of emergency department smoking-cessation interventions and compares them with those of other approaches. METHODS: Previously published research described the effectiveness of 2 multicomponent smoking cessation interventions, including brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, quitline referral, and follow-up communication. Study 1 (collected in 2010-2012) only analyzed the combined interventions. Study 2 (collected in 2017-2019) analyzed the intervention components independently. Costs per participant and per quit were estimated separately, under distinct intervention with dedicated staff and intervention with repurposed staff assumptions. The distinction concerns whether the intervention used dedicated staff for delivery or whether time from existing staff was repurposed for intervention if available. RESULTS: Data were analyzed in 2021-2022. In the first study, the cost per participant was $860 (2018 dollars), and the cost per quit was $11,814 (95% CI=$7,641, $25,423) (dedicated) and $227 per participant and $3,121 per quit (95% CI=$1,910, $7,012) (repurposed). In Study 2, the combined effect of brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, and quitline cost $808 per participant and $6,100 per quit (dedicated) (95% CI=$4,043, $12,274) and $221 per participant and $1,669 per quit (95% CI=$1,052, $3,531) (repurposed). CONCLUSIONS: Costs varied considerably per method used but were comparable with those of other smoking cessation interventions.

Successful Optimization of Tobacco Dependence Treatment in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Tobacco dependence treatment initiated in the hospital emergency department (ED) is effective. However, trials typically use multicomponent interventions, making it difficult to distinguish specific components that are effective. In addition, interactions between components cannot be assessed. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy allows investigators to identify these effects. METHODS: We conducted a full-factorial, 24 or 16-condition optimization trial in a busy hospital ED to examine the performance of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: a brief negotiation interview; 6 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy with the first dose delivered in the ED; active referral to a telephone quitline; and enrollment in SmokefreeTXT, a free short-messaging service program. Study data were analyzed with a novel mixed methods approach to assess clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint was tobacco abstinence at 3 months, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide using a Bedfont Micro+ Smokerlyzer. RESULTS: Between February 2017 and May 2019, we enrolled 1,056 adult smokers visiting the ED. Odd ratios (95% confidence intervals) from the primary analysis of biochemically confirmed abstinence rates at 3 months for each intervention, versus control, were: brief negotiation interview, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8); nicotine replacement therapy, 2.1 (1.3, 3.2); quitline, 1.4 (0.9, 2.2); SmokefreeTXT, 1.1 (0.7, 1.7). There were no statistically significant interactions among components. Economic and qualitative analyses are in progress. CONCLUSION: The brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy were efficacious. This study is the first to identify components of ED-initiated tobacco dependence treatment that are individually effective. Future work will address the scalability of the brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy by offering provider-delivered brief negotiation interviews and nicotine replacement therapy prescriptions.

Advances in clinical trials methodology: Intervention optimization approaches in emergency medicine.

The classical two-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) is designed to test the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention, which may consist of one or more components. However, this approach does not enable the investigator to obtain information that is important in intervention development, such as which individual components of the intervention are efficacious, which are not and possibly should be removed, and whether any components interact. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) is a new framework for development, optimization, and evaluation of interventions. MOST includes the RCT for purposes of evaluation, but inserts a phase of research before the RCT aimed at intervention optimization. The optimization phase requires one or more separate trials similar in scope to an RCT, but employing a different experimental design. The design of the optimization trial is selected strategically so as to maximize the amount of scientific information gained using the available resources. One consideration in selecting this experimental design is the type of intervention to be optimized. If a fixed intervention, i.e. one in which the same intervention content and intensity is provided to all participants, is to be optimized, a factorial experiment is often appropriate. If an adaptive intervention, i.e. one in which intervention content or intensity is varied in a principled manner, is to be optimized, a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) is often a good choice. The objective of this article is to describe MOST and the scientific rationale for its use; describe two current applications of MOST in emergency medicine research, one using a factorial experiment and the other using a SMART; and discuss funding strategies and potential future applications in studying the care of individuals with acute illness, injury, or behavioral disorders.

Optimization of a technology-supported physical activity promotion intervention for breast cancer survivors: Results from Fit2Thrive.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for breast cancer survivors are well established. However, most are insufficiently active. Fit2Thrive used the Multiphase Optimization Strategy methodology to determine the effect of 5 intervention components on MVPA in this population. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-nine participants (mean age, 52.5 years; SD, 9.9 years) received a core intervention (the Fit2Thrive self-monitoring app and Fitbit) and were randomly assigned to 5 intervention components set to on/off in a full factorial experiment: support calls, deluxe app, buddy, online gym, and text messages. The intervention was delivered over 12 weeks with a 12-week follow-up. MVPA was measured via accelerometry at the baseline (T1), at 12 weeks (T2), and at 24 weeks (T3). The main effects and interaction effects at each time point were examined for all components. RESULTS: Trial retention was high: 91.8% had valid accelerometer data at T2 or T3. Across all conditions, there were significant increases in MVPA (+53.6 min/wk; P < .001) and in the proportion of survivors meeting MVPA guidelines (+22.3%; P < .001) at T2 that were maintained but attenuated at T3 (MVPA, +24.6 min/wk; P < .001; meeting guidelines, +12.6%; P < .001). No individual components significantly improved MVPA, although increases were greater for the on level versus the off level for support calls, buddy, and text messages at T2 and T3. CONCLUSIONS: The Fit2Thrive core intervention (the self-monitoring app and Fitbit) is promising for increasing MVPA in breast cancer survivors, but the components provided no additional increases in MVPA. Future research should evaluate the core intervention in a randomized trial and determine what components optimize MVPA behaviors in breast cancer survivors.

One view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral approaches to cancer prevention and control: intervention optimization.

As a new decade begins, we propose that the time is right to reexamine current methods and procedures and look for opportunities to accelerate progress in cancer prevention and control. In this article we offer our view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral interventions for cancer prevention and control. We begin by discussing and questioning several implicit conventions. We then briefly introduce an alternative research framework: the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST). MOST, a principled framework for intervention development, optimization, and evaluation, stresses not only intervention effectiveness, but also intervention affordability, scalability, and efficiency. We review some current limitations of MOST along with future directions for methodological work in this area, and suggest some changes in the scientific environment we believe would permit wider adoption of intervention optimization. We propose that wider adoption of intervention optimization would have a positive impact on development and successful implementation of interventions for cancer prevention and control and on intervention science more broadly, including accumulation of a coherent base of knowledge about what works and what does not; establishment of an empirical basis for adaptation of interventions to different settings with different levels and types of resources; and, in the long run, acceleration of progress from Stage 0 to Stage V in the National Institutes of Health Model of Stages of Intervention Development.

Evaluating four motivation-phase intervention components for use with primary care patients unwilling to quit smoking: a randomized factorial experiment.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of intervention components designed to increase quit attempts and promote abstinence in patients initially unwilling to quit smoking. DESIGN: A four-factor, randomized factorial experiment. SETTING: Sixteen primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 577 adults who smoke (60% women, 80% White) recruited during primary care visits who were currently willing to reduce their smoking but unwilling to try to quit. Interventions Four factors contrasted intervention components administered over a 1-year period: (i) nicotine mini-lozenge versus none; (ii) reduction counseling versus none; (iii) behavioral activation (BA) counseling versus none; and (iv) motivational 5Rs counseling versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any time. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks post enrollment; secondary outcomes were point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks and making a quit attempt by weeks 26 and 52. FINDINGS: No abstinence main effects were found but a mini-lozenge × reduction counseling × BA interaction was found at 52 weeks; P = 0.03. Unpacking this interaction showed that the mini-lozenge alone produced the highest abstinence rate (16.7%); combining it with reduction counseling produced an especially low abstinence rate (4.1%). Reduction counseling decreased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 52 weeks relative to no reduction counseling (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine mini-lozenges may increase smoking abstinence in people initially unwilling to quit smoking, but their effectiveness declines when used with smoking reduction counseling or other behavioral interventions. Reduction counseling decreases the likelihood of making a quit attempt in people initially unwilling to quit smoking.

A Tribute to the Mind, Methodology and Mentoring of Wayne Velicer.

Wayne Velicer is remembered for a mind where mathematical concepts and calculations intrigued him, behavioral science beckoned him, and people fascinated him. Born in Green Bay, Wisconsin on March 4, 1944, he was raised on a farm, although early influences extended far beyond that beginning. His Mathematics BS and Psychology minor at Wisconsin State University in Oshkosh, and his PhD in Quantitative Psychology from Purdue led him to a fruitful and far-reaching career. He was honored several times as a high-impact author, was a renowned scholar in quantitative and health psychology, and had more than 300 scholarly publications and 54,000+ citations of his work, advancing the arenas of quantitative methodology and behavioral health. In his methodological work, Velicer sought out ways to measure, synthesize, categorize, and assess people and constructs across behaviors and time, largely through principal components analysis, time series, and cluster analysis. Further, he and several colleagues developed a method called Testing Theory-based Quantitative Predictions, successfully applied to predicting outcomes and effect sizes in smoking cessation, diet behavior, and sun protection, with the potential for wider applications. With $60,000,000 in external funding, Velicer also helped engage a large cadre of students and other colleagues to study methodological models for a myriad of health behaviors in a widely applied Transtheoretical Model of Change. Unwittingly, he has engendered indelible memories and gratitude to all who crossed his path. Although Wayne Velicer left this world on October 15, 2017 after battling an aggressive cancer, he is still very present among us.

Predictors of Smoking Cessation Attempts and Success Following Motivation-Phase Interventions Among People Initially Unwilling to Quit Smoking.

INTRODUCTION: Most people who smoke cigarettes are not willing (ie, not ready) to make a quit attempt (QA) at any given time. Unfortunately, interventions intended to increase QAs and the success of QAs are only modestly effective. Identifying processes leading to QAs and quitting success could guide intervention development. AIMS AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized factorial trial of 6 weeks of motivation-phase interventions among primary care patients (N = 517) who were initially unwilling to quit but were willing to reduce their smoking. Using logistic regression, we controlled for treatment condition and tested whether baseline or change in smoking-related constructs after 6 weeks of treatment predicted (1) making an at least 24 h QA between weeks 6 and 26 and (2) quitting success at week 26 (7-day point-prevalence abstinence among those who made a QA). Predictors included cigarettes/day, time to first cigarette, motivation to quit, quitting self-efficacy, anticipated urges to smoke if quit, positive affect, negative affect, and time spent around others who smoke. RESULTS: In multivariable models that included all smoking-related constructs, changes in the following variables predicted initiating a QA above and beyond other variables: greater baseline time to first cigarette (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60), increases in time to first cigarette (OR = 1.27), and increases in quitting self-efficacy (OR = 1.14). Increased motivation to quit predicted conversion of a QA into quitting success at 26 weeks (OR = 1.36). CONCLUSION: Predictors of making a QA differed from predictors of quitting success. Predictors of QAs and success could each serve as important treatment targets of motivation-phase interventions. IMPLICATIONS: Motivation-phase interventions for people initially unwilling to quit smoking cigarettes may be improved by striving to increase their (1) time to first cigarette and quitting self-efficacy to promote QAs and (2) motivation to quit to promote quit success. Future experimental tests of such interventions are needed to identify causal determinants of QAs and quitting success.

Effects of motivation phase intervention components on quit attempts in smokers unwilling to quit: A factorial experiment.

BACKGROUND: Smoking reduction treatment is a promising approach to increase abstinence amongst smokers initially unwilling to quit. However, little is known about which reduction treatment elements increase quit attempts and the uptake of cessation treatment amongst such smokers. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a 4-factor randomized factorial experiment conducted amongst primary care patients (N = 517) presenting for regular healthcare visits in Southern Wisconsin who were unwilling to quit smoking but willing to cut down. We evaluated the main and interactive effects of Motivation-phase intervention components on whether participants: 1) made a quit attempt (intentional abstinence ≥24 h) by 6- and 26-weeks post-study enrollment and, 2) used cessation treatment. We also evaluated the relations of quit attempts with abstinence. The four intervention components evaluated were: 1) Nicotine Patch vs. None; 2) Nicotine Gum vs. None; 3) Motivational Interviewing (MI) vs. None; and 4) Behavioral Reduction Counseling (BR) vs. None. Intervention components were administered over 6 weeks, with an option to repeat treatment; participants could request cessation treatment at any point. RESULTS: Nicotine gum significantly increased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 6 weeks (23% vs. 15% without gum; p < .05). Conversely, nicotine patch reduced quit attempts when used with BR. Patch also discouraged use of cessation treatment (15.8% vs. 23% without patch; p < .05). Aided vs. unaided quit attempts produced abstinence in 42% vs. 10% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: Nicotine gum is a promising Motivation-phase intervention that may spur quit attempts amongst smokers initially unwilling to quit.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Optimized Smoking Treatment Delivered in Primary Care.

Background: The effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment is limited in real-world use, perhaps because we have not selected the components of such treatments optimally nor have treatments typically been developed for and evaluated in real-world clinical settings. Purpose: To validate an optimized smoking cessation treatment package that comprises intervention components identified as effective in factorial screening experiments conducted as per the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST). Methods: Adult smokers motivated to quit were recruited from primary care clinics (N = 623). Participants were randomized to receive either recommended usual care (R-UC; 10 min of in-person counseling, 8 weeks of nicotine patch, and referral to quitline services) or abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT; 3 weeks of prequit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch + mini-lozenges, three in-person and eight phone counseling sessions, and 7-11 automated calls to prompt medication use). The key outcomes were self-reported and biochemically confirmed (carbon monoxide, CO <6 ppm) 7-day point-prevalence abstinence. Results: A-OT participants had significantly higher self-reported abstinence rates than R-UC participants at 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks (ORs: 1.91-3.05; p <. 001). The biochemically confirmed 26-week abstinence rates were lower than the self-reported 26-week rates, but revealed a similar treatment effect size (OR = 2.94, p < .001). There was no moderation of treatment effects on 26-week abstinence by demographic, psychiatric, or nicotine dependence variables. A-OT had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 26-week CO-confirmed abstinence of $7,800. Conclusions: A smoking cessation treatment that is optimized via MOST development meaningfully enhances cessation rates beyond R-UC smoking treatment in smokers seen in primary care. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02301403.

Optimization of a technology-supported physical activity intervention for breast cancer survivors: Fit2Thrive study protocol.

Fit2Thrive is a theory-guided physical activity promotion trial using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) to test efficacy for improving physical activity of five technology-supported physical activity promotion intervention components among breast cancer survivors. This trial will recruit 256 inactive breast cancer survivors nationwide. All participants will receive the core intervention which includes a Fitbit and standard self-monitoring Fit2Thrive smartphone application which will be downloaded to their personal phone. Women will be randomized to one of 32 conditions in a factorial design involving five factors with two levels: support calls (No vs. Yes), app type (standard vs. deluxe), text messaging (No vs. Yes), online gym (No vs. Yes) and Fitbit Buddy (No vs. Yes). The proposed trial examines the effects of the components on physical activity at 12 and 24weeks. Results will support the selection of a final package of intervention components that has been optimized to maximize physical activity and is subject to an upper limit of cost. The optimized intervention will be tested in a future trial. Fit2Thrive is the first trial to use the MOST framework to develop and test a physical activity promotion intervention in breast cancer survivors and will lead to an improved understanding of how to effectively change survivors' physical activity. These findings could result in more scalable, effective physical activity interventions for breast cancer survivors, and, ultimately, improve health and disease outcomes.

Tobacco dependence treatment in the emergency department: A randomized trial using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco dependence remains the leading preventable cause of death in the developed world. Smokers are disproportionately from lower socioeconomic groups, and may use the hospital emergency department (ED) as an important source of care. A recent clinical trial demonstrated the efficacy of a multicomponent intervention to help smokers quit, but the independent contributions of those components is unknown. METHODS: This is a full-factorial (16-arm) randomized trial in a busy hospital ED of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: brief motivational interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, referral to a telephone quitline, and a texting program. The trial utilizes the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) and a novel mixed methods analytic design to assess clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint is tobacco abstinence at 3months, verified by participants' exhaled carbon monoxide. RESULTS: Study enrollment began in February 2017. As of April 2017, 52 of 1056 planned participants (4.9%) were enrolled. Telephone-based semi-structured participant interviews and in-person biochemical verification of smoking abstinence are completed at the 3-month follow-up. Efficacy and cost effectiveness analyses will be conducted after follow-up is completed. DISCUSSION: The goal of this study is to identify a clinically efficacious, cost-effective intervention package for the initial treatment of tobacco dependence in ED patients. The efficacy of this combination can then be tested in a subsequent confirmatory trial. Our approach incorporates qualitative feedback from study participants in evaluating which intervention components will be tested in the future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial (NCT02896400) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on September 6, 2016.

Toward precision smoking cessation treatment II: Proximal effects of smoking cessation intervention components on putative mechanisms of action.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how smoking cessation treatments exert their effects can inform treatment development and use. Factorial designs allow researchers to examine whether multiple intervention components affect hypothesized change mechanisms, and whether the affected mechanisms are related to cessation. METHODS: This is a secondary data analysis of smokers recruited during primary care visits (N=637, 55% women, 87% white) who were motivated to quit. Participants in this fractional factorial experiment were randomized to one level of each of six intervention factors: Prequit Nicotine Patch vs None, Prequit Nicotine Gum vs None, Preparation Counseling vs None, Intensive In-Person Counseling vs Minimal, Intensive Phone Counseling vs Minimal, and 16 vs 8 Weeks of Combination Nicotine Replacement (nicotine patch+nicotine gum). Data on putative mechanisms (e.g., medication use, withdrawal, self-efficacy) and smoking status were gathered using daily assessments and during follow-up assessment calls. RESULTS: Some intervention components influenced hypothesized mechanisms. Prequit Gum and Patch each reduced prequit smoking and enhanced prequit coping and self-efficacy. In-Person Counseling increased prequit motivation to quit, postquit self-efficacy, and postquit perceived intratreatment support. Withdrawal reduction and reduced prequit smoking produced the strongest effects on cessation. The significant effect of combining Prequit Gum and In-Person Counseling on 26-week abstinence was mediated by increased prequit self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: This factorial experiment identified which putative treatment mechanisms were influenced by discrete intervention components and which mechanisms influenced cessation. Such information supports the combined use of prequit nicotine gum and intensive in-person counseling as cessation interventions that operate via increased prequit self-efficacy.

Toward precision smoking cessation treatment I: Moderator results from a factorial experiment.

BACKGROUND: The development of tobacco use treatments that are effective for all smokers is critical to improving clinical and public health. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) uses highly efficient factorial experiments to evaluate multiple intervention components for possible inclusion in an optimized tobacco use treatment. Factorial experiments permit analyses of the influence of patient characteristics on main and interaction effects of multiple, relatively discrete, intervention components. This study examined whether person-factor and smoking characteristics moderated the main or interactive effects of intervention components on 26-week self-reported abstinence rates. METHODS: This fractional factorial experiment evaluated six smoking cessation intervention components among primary care patients (N=637): Prequit Nicotine Patch vs. None, Prequit Nicotine Gum vs. None, Preparation Counseling vs. None, Intensive Cessation In-Person Counseling vs. Minimal, Intensive Cessation Telephone Counseling vs. Minimal, and 16 vs. 8 Weeks of Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT; nicotine patch+nicotine gum). RESULTS: Both psychiatric history and smoking heaviness moderated intervention component effects. In comparison with participants with no self-reported history of a psychiatric disorder, those with a positive history showed better response to 16- vs. 8-weeks of combination NRT, but a poorer response to counseling interventions. Also, in contrast to light smokers, heavier smokers showed a poorer response to counseling interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Heavy smokers and those with psychiatric histories demonstrated a differential response to intervention components. This research illustrates the use of factorial designs to examine the interactions between person characteristics and relatively discrete intervention components. Future research is needed to replicate these findings.

Comparative effectiveness of intervention components for producing long-term abstinence from smoking: a factorial screening experiment.

AIMS: To identify promising intervention components that help smokers attain and maintain abstinence during a quit attempt. DESIGN: A 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 randomized factorial experiment. SETTING: Eleven primary care clinics in Wisconsin, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 544 smokers (59% women, 86% white) recruited during primary care visits and motivated to quit. INTERVENTIONS: Five intervention components designed to help smokers attain and maintain abstinence: (1) extended medication (26 versus 8 weeks of nicotine patch + nicotine gum); (2) maintenance (phone) counseling versus none; (3) medication adherence counseling versus none; (4) automated (medication) adherence calls versus none; and (5) electronic medication monitoring with feedback and counseling versus electronic medication monitoring alone. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 7-day self-reported point-prevalence abstinence 1 year after the target quit day. FINDINGS: Only extended medication produced a main effect. Twenty-six versus 8 weeks of medication improved point-prevalence abstinence rates (43 versus 34% at 6 months; 34 versus 27% at 1 year; P = 0.01 for both). There were four interaction effects at 1 year, showing that an intervention component's effectiveness depended upon the components with which it was combined. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-six weeks of nicotine patch + nicotine gum (versus 8 weeks) and maintenance counseling provided by phone are promising intervention components for the cessation and maintenance phases of smoking treatment.

Enhancing the effectiveness of smoking treatment research: conceptual bases and progress.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A chronic care strategy could potentially enhance the reach and effectiveness of smoking treatment by providing effective interventions for all smokers, including those who are initially unwilling to quit. This paper describes the conceptual bases of a National Cancer Institute-funded research program designed to develop an optimized, comprehensive, chronic care smoking treatment. METHODS: This research is grounded in three methodological approaches: (1) the Phase-Based Model, which guides the selection of intervention components to be experimentally evaluated for the different phases of smoking treatment (motivation, preparation, cessation, and maintenance); (2) the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST), which guides the screening of intervention components via efficient experimental designs and, ultimately, the assembly of promising components into an optimized treatment package; and (3) pragmatic research methods, such as electronic health record recruitment, that facilitate the efficient translation of research findings into clinical practice. Using this foundation and working in primary care clinics, we conducted three factorial experiments (reported in three accompanying papers) to screen 15 motivation, preparation, cessation and maintenance phase intervention components for possible inclusion in a chronic care smoking treatment program. RESULTS: This research identified intervention components with relatively strong evidence of effectiveness at particular phases of smoking treatment and it demonstrated the efficiency of the MOST approach in terms both of the number of intervention components tested and of the richness of the information yielded. CONCLUSIONS: A new, synthesized research approach efficiently evaluates multiple intervention components to identify promising components for every phase of smoking treatment. Many intervention components interact with one another, supporting the use of factorial experiments in smoking treatment development.

Comparative effectiveness of motivation phase intervention components for use with smokers unwilling to quit: a factorial screening experiment.

AIMS: To screen promising intervention components designed to reduce smoking and promote abstinence in smokers initially unwilling to quit. DESIGN: A balanced, four-factor, randomized factorial experiment. SETTING: Eleven primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 517 adult smokers (63.4% women, 91.1% white) recruited during primary care visits who were willing to reduce their smoking but not quit. INTERVENTIONS: Four factors contrasted intervention components designed to reduce smoking and promote abstinence: (1) nicotine patch versus none; (2) nicotine gum versus none; (3) motivational interviewing (MI) versus none; and (4) behavioral reduction counseling (BR) versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any point during the study. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was percentage change in cigarettes smoked per day at 26 weeks post-study enrollment; the secondary outcomes were percentage change at 12 weeks and point-prevalence abstinence at 12 and 26 weeks post-study enrollment. FINDINGS: There were few main effects, but a significant four-way interaction at 26 weeks post-study enrollment (P = 0.01, ß = 0.12) revealed relatively large smoking reductions by two component combinations: nicotine gum combined with BR and BR combined with MI. Further, BR improved 12-week abstinence rates (P = 0.04), and nicotine gum, when used without MI, increased 26-week abstinence after a subsequent aided quit attempt (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Motivation-phase nicotine gum and behavioral reduction counseling are promising intervention components for smokers who are initially unwilling to quit.

Identifying effective intervention components for smoking cessation: a factorial screening experiment.

AIMS: To identify promising intervention components intended to help smokers to attain and maintain abstinence in their quit smoking attempts. DESIGN: A fully crossed, six-factor randomized fractional factorial experiment. SETTING: Eleven primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 637 adult smokers (55% women, 88% white) motivated to quit smoking who visited primary care clinics. INTERVENTIONS: Six intervention components designed to prepare smokers to quit, and achieve and maintain abstinence (i.e. for the preparation, cessation and maintenance phases of smoking treatment): (1) preparation nicotine patch versus none; (2) preparation nicotine gum versus none; (3) preparation counseling versus none; (4) intensive cessation in-person counseling versus minimal; (5) intensive cessation telephone counseling versus minimal; and (6) 16 versus 8 weeks of combination nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patch + nicotine gum). MEASUREMENTS: Seven-day self-reported point-prevalence abstinence at 16 weeks. FINDINGS: Preparation counseling significantly improved week 16 abstinence rates (P = .04), while both forms of preparation nicotine replacement therapy interacted synergistically with intensive cessation in-person counseling (P < 0.05). Conversely, intensive cessation phone counseling and intensive cessation in-person counseling interacted antagonistically (P < 0.05)-these components produced higher abstinence rates by themselves than in combination. CONCLUSIONS: Preparation counseling and the combination of intensive cessation in-person counseling with preparation nicotine gum or patch are promising intervention components for smoking and should be evaluated as an integrated treatment package.