Designing a Multi-phase Optimization Strategy (MOST) study is an excellent approach to develop efficient, effective, and scalable interventions. The first critical step is indeed to identify the intervention components that you will optimize.

In a MOST study, a "component" is an independent, manipulable part of an intervention that you hypothesize contributes to its effectiveness, efficiency, or cost. The goal is to figure out which components are essential, which can be removed, and which configurations (doses, delivery methods) work best.

Here's a structured approach to identify intervention components for optimization:

---

Phase 1: Foundational Steps (Setting the Stage)

Before diving into components, ensure you have a clear understanding of the broader context.

• Define the Problem & Target Outcome(s):


• What health behavior, condition, or problem are you trying to address?


• What is the target population?


• What are your primary outcome measures (e.g., behavior change, symptom reduction, adherence, clinical markers)?


• What are your secondary outcomes (e.g., mediators, moderators, cost-effectiveness)?


• Articulate the Theory of Change / Logic Model:


• What are the hypothesized mechanisms (e.g., self-efficacy, knowledge, motivation, social support, skill acquisition) through which the intervention is expected to produce change?


• How do you believe your intervention "works"? This theoretical underpinning is crucial for identifying relevant components.

---

Phase 2: Identifying Potential Intervention Components

This is where you systematically break down the intervention into its constituent parts.

• Review Existing Interventions & Evidence:


• Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses: What components have been found effective (or ineffective) in similar interventions?


• Program Manuals/Protocols: Deconstruct successful (and unsuccessful) existing interventions. What specific activities, materials, or strategies do they use?


• Expert Consultation: Interview researchers, practitioners, and clinical experts in the field. What do they believe are the "active ingredients" of successful interventions?


• Target Population Input (Co-design): Involve members of your target population. What do they think would be helpful, feasible, and acceptable? This can reveal novel components or highlight barriers to existing ones.


• Brainstorm & Map Components to Mechanisms of Change:


• For each mechanism of change identified in your logic model (e.g., improving self-efficacy, increasing knowledge, building skills), brainstorm specific intervention activities or elements that could address it.


• Example: If a mechanism is "increasing self-efficacy for physical activity," potential components could be:


• Goal setting activities


• Guided practice of new skills


• Observation of role models (vicarious learning)


• Positive reinforcement/feedback


• Problem-solving strategies for anticipated barriers


• Categorize Potential Components:

It's helpful to think of components in different categories. This ensures you're considering all aspects of an intervention.

• Content/Active Ingredients:


• Information/Education: Health facts, risk communication, benefits.


• Skill Training: Communication skills, coping skills, problem-solving, behavioral rehearsals.


• Cognitive Strategies: Cognitive restructuring, mindfulness, reframing.


• Motivational Strategies: Motivational interviewing, values clarification, incentives.


• Social Support Strategies: Peer groups, family involvement, buddy systems.


• Environmental Modification: Prompts, cues, removing barriers.


• Self-Monitoring: Diaries, apps, trackers.


• Delivery Parameters:


• Delivery Mode: In-person, virtual (telehealth), app-based, workbook, group, individual.


• Dose/Intensity:


• Frequency: Number of sessions per week/month.


• Duration: Length of each session, total program length.


• Intensity: Amount of content, depth of engagement.


• Provider Type: Trained professional (e.g., psychologist, nurse), lay health worker, peer supporter, automated system.


• Timing/Sequence: When components are delivered (e.g., early vs. late, concurrent vs. sequential).


• Ancillary/Supportive Elements: Reminders, booster sessions, incentives (monetary, non-monetary), tailored messages.


• Define the Levels for Each Component:

For a MOST study, each component you select for optimization needs to have at least two distinct levels that can be manipulated. These levels should represent meaningful differences in intensity, presence/absence, or modality.

• Example Component: "Self-monitoring using an app"


• Level 1: Present (daily self-monitoring via app)


• Level 2: Absent (no self-monitoring app)


• Example Component: "Motivational Interviewing (MI) sessions"


• Level 1: High Dose (4 weekly MI sessions)


• Level 2: Low Dose (1 booster MI session)


• Level 3: Absent (no MI sessions) - Note: While 3 levels are possible, 2 are most common for efficiency in factorial designs.


• Example Component: "Peer Support"


• Level 1: Individual peer mentor


• Level 2: Group peer support


• Level 3: No peer support

---

Phase 3: Pruning and Refining Components for Optimization

You'll likely generate a long list. Now you need to narrow it down based on MOST principles.

• Assess Manipulability:


• Can this component actually be "turned on/off" or varied in a systematic way for experimental purposes?


• Is it independent enough from other components to be varied separately?


• Consider Resource Constraints (Time, Money, Personnel):


• A full factorial experiment can quickly become very large. You can only realistically test a limited number of components and levels. Prioritize.


• Which components are most expensive to deliver? Which require the most training? Optimization often aims for cost-effectiveness.


• Prioritize Components with Hypothesized Effects:


• Which components do you have strong theoretical or empirical reasons to believe are truly "active ingredients"?


• Which components are you most uncertain about regarding their necessity or optimal configuration? These are excellent candidates for optimization.


• Are there components that are clearly essential and must be included for ethical reasons or basic functionality? (These might not be "optimized" in the experiment, but are part of the base intervention).


• Avoid Redundancy:


• Are two components essentially doing the same thing or targeting the same mechanism of change in a very similar way? Consolidate or choose the most distinct.


• Ethical Considerations:


• Are there components that cannot ethically be withheld from certain groups? If so, they might need to be part of a "core" intervention that is always present, and other components are added/varied on top of that.


• Practicality and Feasibility in Real-World Settings:


• Can the component, at its different levels, be delivered in a way that is practical and scalable in the intended real-world context?

---

Example: Optimizing a Digital Weight Loss Intervention

Let's say your goal is to optimize a digital intervention for weight loss in adults.

1. Problem: Overweight/Obesity. Outcome: Weight loss (primary), physical activity, dietary intake (secondary). Target Pop: Adults aged 30-60.
2. Theory of Change: Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) – focuses on self-efficacy, outcome expectations, self-regulation, observational learning.

Initial Brainstorming (and mapping to SCT):

• Self-Monitoring (SCT: Self-regulation):


• Food intake logging


• Weight logging


• Activity logging


• Goal Setting (SCT: Self-regulation, Outcome Expectations):


• Calorie goals


• Activity goals


• Feedback (SCT: Self-regulation, Outcome Expectations):


• Automated daily summaries


• Personalized feedback from a coach


• Education (SCT: Knowledge, Outcome Expectations):


• Nutrition lessons


• Exercise tips


• Skill-building (SCT: Self-efficacy):


• Portion control practice


• Meal planning strategies


• Coping with cravings


• Social Support (SCT: Social support, vicarious learning):


• Online peer forum


• Buddy system


• Incentives (SCT: Outcome Expectations, Motivation):


• Badges/gamification


• Small monetary rewards

Pruning & Defining Components for Optimization (MOST Factorial Experiment):

Let's say you decide to focus on 3-4 key manipulable components based on prior research suggesting they might be crucial but also potentially expensive or burdensome, and you want to find the most efficient combination.

• Component 1: Coach Feedback (Delivery Parameter, Dose)


• Hypothesis: Personalized feedback is powerful but resource-intensive.


• Level 1: Weekly personalized feedback from a coach (High cost)


• Level 2: Automated, algorithm-driven feedback only (Lower cost)


• Component 2: Social Support Forum (Content/Delivery)


• Hypothesis: Peer interaction could boost engagement but might be overwhelming or inactive.


• Level 1: Active moderated online peer forum


• Level 2: No peer forum (individual interaction only)


• Component 3: Advanced Skill-Building Modules (Content/Dose)


• Hypothesis: In-depth modules on coping with cravings, emotional eating might be critical for some, but unnecessary for others or too much info.


• Level 1: Present (4 in-depth interactive modules)


• Level 2: Absent (basic education only, no deep skill-building)


• Component 4: Gamified Incentives (Ancillary Element)


• Hypothesis: Gamification might increase engagement without significant cost.


• Level 1: Present (Points, badges, leaderboards for logging/achievements)


• Level 2: Absent (Standard app usage, no gamification)

This gives you a 2x2x2x2 factorial experiment, testing 16 different versions of the intervention. You've narrowed down a broad range of ideas into distinct, testable components with clear levels, ready for the optimization experiment.

---

By following this systematic approach, you'll move from a broad idea to a clearly defined set of intervention components and their levels, which is the cornerstone of a successful MOST study.