Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26155819›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

Evaluation of the fidelity of an interactive face-to-face educational intervention to improve general practitioner management of back pain.

Simon D French, Sally E Green, Jill J Francis, Rachelle Buchbinder, Denise A O'Connor, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Susan Michie

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

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. IMPNPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. 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.

Simon D FrenchSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Sally E GreenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jill J FrancisDivision of Health Services Research & Management, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK.
Rachelle BuchbinderSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Denise A O'ConnorSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Susan MichieDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesImplementation intervention effects can only be fully realised and understood if they are faithfully delivered. However the evaluation of implementation intervention fidelity is not commonly undertaken. The IMPLEMENT intervention was designed to improve the management of low back pain by general medical practitioners. It consisted of a two-session interactive workshop, including didactic presentations and small group discussions by trained facilitators. This study aimed to evaluate the fidelity of the IMPLEMENT intervention by assessing: (1) observed facilitator adherence to planned behaviour change techniques (BCTs); (2) comparison of observed and self-reported adherence to planned BCTs and (3) variation across different facilitators and different BCTs.

designThe study compared planned and actual, and observed versus self-assessed delivery of BCTs during the IMPLEMENT workshops.

methodWorkshop sessions were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Observed adherence of facilitators to the planned intervention was assessed by analysing the workshop transcripts in terms of BCTs delivered. Self-reported adherence was measured using a checklist completed at the end of each workshop session and was compared with the 'gold standard' of observed adherence using sensitivity and specificity analyses.

resultsThe overall observed adherence to planned BCTs was 79%, representing moderate-to-high intervention fidelity. There was no significant difference in adherence to BCTs between the facilitators. Sensitivity of self-reported adherence was 95% (95% CI 88 to 98) and specificity was 30% (95% CI 11 to 60).

conclusionsThe findings suggest that the IMPLEMENT intervention was delivered with high levels of adherence to the planned intervention protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The IMPLEMENT trial was registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN012606000098538 (http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?ID=1162).

Indexed as

AustraliaClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, GraduateGeneral PracticeHumansLow Back PainSelf ReportPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID26155819
PMCPMC4499726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.