Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23222844›Full record

Trial reportNursing research

Strategies used and data obtained during treatment fidelity monitoring.

Janet S Carpenter, Debra S Burns, Jingwei Wu, Menggang Yu, Kristin Ryker, Eileen Tallman, Diane Von Ah

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Janet S CarpenterCenter for Enhancing Quality of Life, School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. carpentj@iupui.edu
Debra S Burns
Jingwei Wu
Menggang Yu
Kristin Ryker
Eileen Tallman
Diane Von Ah
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · US

Funding

Breathe-Intervention for Hot Flashes, Interference, and Associated OutcomesR01CA132927 · NCI · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI CARPENTER, JANET S · 2008 to 2011
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS 1 R01 CA132927NCI NIH HHS R01 CA132927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment fidelity, also called intervention fidelity, is an important component of testing treatment efficacy. Although examples of strategies needed to address treatment fidelity have been provided in several published reports, data describing variations that might compromise efficacy testing have been omitted.

objectivesThe aim of this study is to describe treatment fidelity monitoring strategies and data within the context of a nursing clinical trial.

methodsA three-group, randomized, controlled trial compared intervention (paced respiration) to attention control (fast, shallow breathing) to usual care for management of hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms. Data from both staff and participants were collected to assess treatment fidelity.

resultsStaff measures for treatment delivery indicated good adherence to protocols. Participant ratings of expectancy and credibility were not statistically different between intervention and attention control; however, the attention control was significantly more acceptable (p < .05). Intervention participant data indicated good treatment receipt and enactment with mean breath rates at each time point falling within the target range. Practice log data for both intervention and attention control indicated lower adherence of once-daily rather than twice-daily practice. DISCUSSION: Despite strengths in fidelity monitoring, some challenges were identified that have implications for other similar intervention studies.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceAdultAttentionBreathing ExercisesFemaleHot FlashesHumansMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID23222844
PMCPMC3523275
OpenAlexW2017676923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.