Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27640187›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2016

High impact of implementation on school-based smoking prevention: the X:IT study-a cluster-randomized smoking prevention trial.

Lotus Sofie Bast, Pernille Due, Pernille Bendtsen, Lene Ringgard, Louise Wohllebe, Mogens Trab Damsgaard, Morten Grønbæk, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Anette Andersen

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evaluating the Implementation Quality of a Social and Emotional Learning Program: A Mixed Methods Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lotus Sofie BastNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark. loni@niph.dk.
Pernille DueNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pernille BendtsenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lene RinggardDanish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Louise WohllebeDanish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mogens Trab DamsgaardNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Morten GrønbækNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annette Kjær ErsbøllNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anette AndersenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKDanish Cancer Society · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation fidelity describes how well an intervention is implemented in the real-world setting. Assessing implementation fidelity is essential in the understanding of intervention results. In most studies, implementation fidelity is measured insufficiently, though, not taking into account the complexity of the concept nor the intervention. The objective of the present study was to develop an overall quantitative measure of implementation fidelity, to examine the degree of implementation fidelity and the association of implementation and effect of a randomized school-based smoking prevention trial-the X:IT study.

methodsA cluster-randomized trial testing is a multi-component intervention to prevent smoking among adolescents in 94 Danish elementary schools (51 intervention, 43 control schools). Participants were grade 7 pupils (mean age 12.5 years). Data was collected by electronic questionnaires among pupils at baseline (n = 4161), the first follow-up (n = 3764), and the second follow-up (n = 3269) and among school coordinators at intervention schools at the first and second follow-up (50 and 39 coordinators).

interventionThe intervention included three components: (1) smoke-free school grounds, (2) smoke-free curriculum, and (3) parental involvement, contracts, and dialogues. Implementation fidelity was assessed by four domains: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, and participant responsiveness. These were combined into an overall school-wise implementation index. The association of implementation and smoking was examined by logistic regression analyses.

resultsOne fourth of the schools was characterized as high implementers of the program (all three components) at both first (12 schools, 24.0 %) and second follow-up (11 schools, 28.2 %). Implementation fidelity was strongly associated with smoking at the first and second follow-up, e.g., the odds for smoking at schools with high implementation both years were OR = 0.44 (95 % CI 0.32 to 0.68).

conclusionsUsing an overall measure based on several aspects of implementation fidelity, we showed a negative graded association between implementation and smoking. This study suggests that higher degrees of implementation will improve the effect of the X:IT intervention. Studying the association between implementation and effect is extremely important; only by doing so, we can distinguish the quality of the intervention from the success of the implementation.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN77415416.

Indexed as

School Health ServicesChildCluster AnalysisDenmarkFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleProgram EvaluationSmoking PreventionStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentsFidelityImplementationIntervention effectSchool interventionSmoking prevention

Identifiers

PMID27640187
PMCPMC5027074
OpenAlexW2519133999

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.