ReviewPilot and feasibility studies2026
Examining predictors of scale-up penalty in preliminary studies of health behavior interventions and subsequent larger trials: a meta-epidemiological review of diverse fields.
Review in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScale-up penalty, a common phenomenon in which the promising effects found in early preliminary studies are substantially reduced when evaluated in a subsequent larger trial, can stall the advancement of health behavior interventions. In obesity-related behavioral interventions, changes to key features between a preliminary study and subsequent larger trials inflate scale-up penalty. The purpose of this study is to examine whether changes in intervention features occur in other behavioral disciplines that utilize a similar developmental continuum wherein smaller-scale preliminary studies inform larger-scale trials, and whether changes in key features inflate scale-up penalty.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review identifying preliminary studies followed by a larger trial conducted by the same author(s) (i.e., a study pair) in four areas-tobacco/smoking cessation, alcohol use, interpersonal violence, and sexually transmitted diseases. We coded intervention features in the preliminary study and larger trial to capture changes in key study features (e.g., who delivered the intervention). Multi-level meta-regressions estimated the association between the changes to key study features and change in standardized mean difference for health outcomes and calculated scale-up penalty.
resultsWe identified 222 effects across 69 study pairs of preliminary studies with subsequent larger trials. Fifty-eight study pairs (84%) contained at least one change to a key study feature. Forty-nine study pairs were included in the meta-regressions (k = 154 effects). Changing the delivery agent, outcome measure, intervention duration, or implementation support in subsequent larger trials followed the hypothesized pattern with larger scale-up penalty (i.e., less effective at-scale) relative to study pairs that did not change those features.
conclusionsMultiple disciplines outside the obesity field make changes to key study features between preliminary studies and subsequent larger trials. Across disciplines, changes to the intervention delivery agent, intervention duration, outcome measurement, and reducing implementation support in subsequent larger trials are associated with inflated scale-up penalty. Recognition of the importance of key study features in preliminary studies and iterative intervention development could improve intervention scale-up.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.