Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25964941›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2014

Methods for streamlining intervention fidelity checklists: an example from the chronic disease self-management program.

SangNam Ahn, Matthew Lee Smith, Mary Altpeter, Basia Belza, Lindsey Post, Marcia G Ory

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

SangNam AhnDivision of Health Systems Management and Policy, School of Public Health, The University of Memphis , Memphis, TN , USA ; Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M Health Science Center, School of Public Health , College Station, TX , USA.
Matthew Lee SmithDepartment of Health Promotion and Behavior, College of Public Health, The University of Georgia , Athens, GA , USA.
Mary AltpeterCenter for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, NC , USA.
Basia BelzaSchool of Nursing, Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems, The University of Washington , Seattle, WA , USA.
Lindsey PostDivision of Health Systems Management and Policy, School of Public Health, The University of Memphis , Memphis, TN , USA.
Marcia G OryDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, Texas A&M Health Science Center, School of Public Health , College Station, TX , USA.

Funding

Health Maintenance Consortium Resourece CenterR01HD047143 · NICHD · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE CTR · PI ORY, MARCIA G. · 2004 to 2008
$2.5M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD047143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Maintaining intervention fidelity should be part of any programmatic quality assurance (QA) plan and is often a licensure requirement. However, fidelity checklists designed by original program developers are often lengthy, which makes compliance difficult once programs become widely disseminated in the field. As a case example, we used Stanford's original Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) fidelity checklist of 157 items to demonstrate heuristic procedures for generating shorter fidelity checklists. Using an expert consensus approach, we sought feedback from active master trainers registered with the Stanford University Patient Education Research Center about which items were most essential to, and also feasible for, assessing fidelity. We conducted three sequential surveys and one expert group-teleconference call. Three versions of the fidelity checklist were created using different statistical and methodological criteria. In a final group-teleconference call with seven national experts, there was unanimous agreement that all three final versions (e.g., a 34-item version, a 20-item version, and a 12-item version) should be made available because the purpose and resources for administering a checklist might vary from one setting to another. This study highlights the methodology used to generate shorter versions of a fidelity checklist, which has potential to inform future QA efforts for this and other evidence-based programs (EBP) for older adults delivered in community settings. With CDSMP and other EBP, it is important to differentiate between program fidelity as mandated by program developers for licensure, and intervention fidelity tools for providing an "at-a-glance" snapshot of the level of compliance to selected program indicators.

Indexed as

agingChronic Disease Self-Management Programevidence-based programsexpert consensusintervention fidelityquality assurance

Identifiers

PMID25964941
PMCPMC4410323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.