A Procedure for Changing a Behavioral Health Treatment During a Trial, with Case Example in Suicide Prevention

Peter C. Britton, Kenneth R. Conner, Stephen A Maisto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

During a trial, standardization can lock in a treatment that researchers learn is flawed and may be ineffective. In such cases, researchers typically decide between two options, continue the trial and monitor for iatrogenic effects or stop the trial. When faced with this dilemma while testing an adaptation of motivational interviewing to address suicidal ideation, our research team considered a third option, to correct the flaws in the intervention and study the effect on outcome. We explored the rationale for and against changing an intervention mid-trial and progressed through a series of steps to determine whether we should change the intervention, ultimately deciding to make changes and examine their impact. We developed a procedure that researchers can use to determine whether they should change an intervention during a trial, how to implement the changes, and how to redesign their study. When faced with evidence that a treatment is ineffective, researchers should consider changing the intervention and examining the effects of the changes on outcome. Such decisions may be particularly relevant in trials examining life-threatening outcomes. Making and studying these changes may increase the potential for the study to identify a treatment that produces a desired outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalArchives of Suicide Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Suicide
Research Personnel
Health
Motivational Interviewing
Suicidal Ideation
Research

Keywords

  • attempted suicide
  • ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01544127
  • motivational interviewing
  • randomized controlled trial
  • research design
  • suicidal ideation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

A Procedure for Changing a Behavioral Health Treatment During a Trial, with Case Example in Suicide Prevention. / Britton, Peter C.; Conner, Kenneth R.; Maisto, Stephen A.

In: Archives of Suicide Research, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a380a73e068a4861895a2d7003123014,
title = "A Procedure for Changing a Behavioral Health Treatment During a Trial, with Case Example in Suicide Prevention",
abstract = "During a trial, standardization can lock in a treatment that researchers learn is flawed and may be ineffective. In such cases, researchers typically decide between two options, continue the trial and monitor for iatrogenic effects or stop the trial. When faced with this dilemma while testing an adaptation of motivational interviewing to address suicidal ideation, our research team considered a third option, to correct the flaws in the intervention and study the effect on outcome. We explored the rationale for and against changing an intervention mid-trial and progressed through a series of steps to determine whether we should change the intervention, ultimately deciding to make changes and examine their impact. We developed a procedure that researchers can use to determine whether they should change an intervention during a trial, how to implement the changes, and how to redesign their study. When faced with evidence that a treatment is ineffective, researchers should consider changing the intervention and examining the effects of the changes on outcome. Such decisions may be particularly relevant in trials examining life-threatening outcomes. Making and studying these changes may increase the potential for the study to identify a treatment that produces a desired outcome.",
keywords = "attempted suicide, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01544127, motivational interviewing, randomized controlled trial, research design, suicidal ideation",
author = "Britton, {Peter C.} and Conner, {Kenneth R.} and Maisto, {Stephen A}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/13811118.2019.1632232",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Archives of Suicide Research",
issn = "1381-1118",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Procedure for Changing a Behavioral Health Treatment During a Trial, with Case Example in Suicide Prevention

AU - Britton, Peter C.

AU - Conner, Kenneth R.

AU - Maisto, Stephen A

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - During a trial, standardization can lock in a treatment that researchers learn is flawed and may be ineffective. In such cases, researchers typically decide between two options, continue the trial and monitor for iatrogenic effects or stop the trial. When faced with this dilemma while testing an adaptation of motivational interviewing to address suicidal ideation, our research team considered a third option, to correct the flaws in the intervention and study the effect on outcome. We explored the rationale for and against changing an intervention mid-trial and progressed through a series of steps to determine whether we should change the intervention, ultimately deciding to make changes and examine their impact. We developed a procedure that researchers can use to determine whether they should change an intervention during a trial, how to implement the changes, and how to redesign their study. When faced with evidence that a treatment is ineffective, researchers should consider changing the intervention and examining the effects of the changes on outcome. Such decisions may be particularly relevant in trials examining life-threatening outcomes. Making and studying these changes may increase the potential for the study to identify a treatment that produces a desired outcome.

AB - During a trial, standardization can lock in a treatment that researchers learn is flawed and may be ineffective. In such cases, researchers typically decide between two options, continue the trial and monitor for iatrogenic effects or stop the trial. When faced with this dilemma while testing an adaptation of motivational interviewing to address suicidal ideation, our research team considered a third option, to correct the flaws in the intervention and study the effect on outcome. We explored the rationale for and against changing an intervention mid-trial and progressed through a series of steps to determine whether we should change the intervention, ultimately deciding to make changes and examine their impact. We developed a procedure that researchers can use to determine whether they should change an intervention during a trial, how to implement the changes, and how to redesign their study. When faced with evidence that a treatment is ineffective, researchers should consider changing the intervention and examining the effects of the changes on outcome. Such decisions may be particularly relevant in trials examining life-threatening outcomes. Making and studying these changes may increase the potential for the study to identify a treatment that produces a desired outcome.

KW - attempted suicide

KW - ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01544127

KW - motivational interviewing

KW - randomized controlled trial

KW - research design

KW - suicidal ideation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070297155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070297155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/13811118.2019.1632232

DO - 10.1080/13811118.2019.1632232

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85070297155

JO - Archives of Suicide Research

JF - Archives of Suicide Research

SN - 1381-1118

ER -