Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25952589›Full record

Trial reportClinical rehabilitation2016

Comparing treatment fidelity between study arms of a randomized controlled clinical trial for stroke family caregivers.

Susan M McLennon, Rebecca D Hancock, Kathleen Redelman, Lisa J Scarton, Elizabeth Riley, Bobbie Sweeney, Barbara Habermann, Nenette M Jessup, Tamilyn Bakas

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Informational support for depression and quality of life improvements in older patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Susan M McLennonIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA smclenno@iu.edu.
Rebecca D HancockIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA.
Kathleen RedelmanIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA.
Lisa J ScartonIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA.
Elizabeth RileyIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA.
Bobbie SweeneyIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA.
Barbara HabermannUniversity of Delaware College of Health Sciences, USA.
Nenette M JessupIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA.
Tamilyn BakasIndiana University School of Nursing, Indiana University, USA.

Funding

Telephone Assessment and Skill-Building Intervention for Stroke CaregiversR01NR010388 · NINR · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI BAKAS, TAMILYN · 2010 to 2014
$1.9M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR010388NINR NIH HHS R01NR010388
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare treatment fidelity among treatment arms in the Telephone Assessment and Skill-Building Kit study for stroke caregivers (TASK II) with respect to: 1) protocol adherence; 2) intervention dosage and 3) nurse intervener perspectives.

designA randomized controlled clinical trial design.

settingUrban, community, midwestern United States. SUBJECTS: A total of 254 stroke caregivers (mean ±SD age, 54.4 ±11.8 years), 55 (22.0%) males and 199 (78.4%) females) randomized to the TASK II intervention (n=123) or an Information, Support, and Referral comparison group (n=131).

interventionsTASK II participants received the TASK II Resource Guide; Information, Support, and Referral participants received a standard caregiver brochure. At approximately 8 weeks after discharge, both groups received 8 weekly calls from a nurse, with a booster call 4 weeks later. MEASURES: Protocol adherence was evaluated with the TASK II Checklist for Monitoring Adherence. Intervention dosage was measured by the number of minutes caregivers spent reading materials and talking with the nurse. Nurse intervener perspectives were obtained through focus groups.

resultsProtocol adherence was 80% for the TASK II and 92% for the Information, Support, and Referral. As expected, intervention dosage differed between TASK II and Information, Support, and Referral with respect to caregiver time spent reading materials (t=-6.49; P<.001) and talking with the nurse (t=-7.38; P<.001). Focus groups with nurses yielded further evidence for treatment fidelity and recommendations for future trials.

conclusionsThese findings substantiate treatment fidelity in both study arms of the TASK II stroke caregiver intervention trial (NIH R01NR010388; ClinicalTrials.govNCT01275495).

Indexed as

Nurse's RoleProfessional-Family RelationsSocial SupportAttitude of Health PersonnelCaregiversFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMidwestern United StatesStrokebehavioral researchFamily caregiversstroketelephone assessment

Identifiers

PMID25952589
PMCPMC4746107

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.