Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26293927›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Assessing fidelity to treatment delivery in the ICONS (Identifying Continence OptioNs after Stroke) cluster randomised feasibility trial.

Brigit M Chesworth, Michael J Leathley, Lois H Thomas, Christopher J Sutton, Denise Forshaw, Caroline L Watkins, ICONS project team and the ICONS Patient, Public and Carer Involvement Groups

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Bladder training for treating overactive bladder in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Replicability, Reproducibility, and Agent-based Simulation of Interventions.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    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.

Brigit M ChesworthClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. BChesworth@uclan.ac.uk.
Michael J LeathleyClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. MJLeathley@uclan.ac.uk.
Lois H ThomasClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. LHThomas@uclan.ac.uk.
Christopher J SuttonLancashire Clinical Trials Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. CJSutton@uclan.ac.uk.
Denise ForshawLancashire Clinical Trials Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. DForshaw@uclan.ac.uk.
Caroline L WatkinsClinical Practice Research Unit, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. CLWatkins@uclan.ac.uk.
ICONS project team and the ICONS Patient, Public and Carer Involvement Groups

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of strategies to monitor and enhance treatment fidelity is of paramount importance in trials of complex interventions. A recent framework published by the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium recommends addressing five areas of treatment fidelity, one of which is delivery of treatment. This study aimed to explore fidelity to treatment delivery of the ICONS intervention (a systematic voiding programme [SVP]). This included exploring the feasibility of a method to assess fidelity to treatment delivery and collecting preliminary evidence of the level of fidelity to SVP delivery in order to inform strategies for improving fidelity in a future trial.

methodsDelivery of treatment was recorded by nurses through completion of daily clinical logs, which included: a voiding interval, proposed voiding times and actual voiding times. The a priori method for assessment of fidelity - comparing actual voiding times with proposed voiding times - was trialled on a small amount of data. Due to errors in documentation of the voiding intervals and proposed voiding times it was not possible to assess fidelity directly as planned. A new method was devised, which included identification of 'key quality indicators'.

resultsThis new approach to assessing fidelity used key quality indicators based upon presence of the data needed to make the comparison between proposed and actual voiding times. The proportion of clinical logs with correct documentation of voiding intervals and proposed voiding times was less than 40 %. For clinical logs with correct documentation, an actual voiding time within 30 min of the proposed voiding time was identified on approximately 55 % of occasions.

conclusionsLessons learnt from this study have implications for the future ICONS definitive trial and for other trials of complex interventions. Implementation of a complex intervention may often deviate from what is intended. While careful consideration should be given to the best method of fidelity assessment, an iterative approach allowing flexibility to adapt pre-planned methods is recommended within feasibility trials. As fidelity to treatment delivery in the ICONS feasibility trial appeared to be relatively low, more attention to implementation strategies will be required in the definitive trial.

trial registrationIdentifier: ISRCTN08609907 ; date registered: 07/07/2010.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisDelivery of Health CareFeasibility StudiesHumansMedical RecordsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeUrinary IncontinenceUrination

Identifiers

PMID26293927
PMCPMC4546169

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.