Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28780544›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2017

Using mixed methods to assess fidelity of delivery and its influencing factors in a complex self-management intervention for people with osteoarthritis and low back pain.

Elaine Toomey, James Matthews, Deirdre A Hurley

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. IMPNPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Elaine ToomeySchool of Psychology, Arts Millennium Building, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
James MatthewsSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland.
Deirdre A HurleySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVES AND

designDespite an increasing awareness of the importance of fidelity of delivery within complex behaviour change interventions, it is often poorly assessed. This mixed methods study aimed to establish the fidelity of delivery of a complex self-management intervention and explore the reasons for these findings using a convergent/triangulation design.

settingFeasibility trial of the Self-management of Osteoarthritis and Low back pain through Activity and Skills (SOLAS) intervention (ISRCTN49875385), delivered in primary care physiotherapy. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: 60 SOLAS sessions were delivered across seven sites by nine physiotherapists. Fidelity of delivery of prespecified intervention components was evaluated using (1) audio-recordings (n=60), direct observations (n=24) and self-report checklists (n=60) and (2) individual interviews with physiotherapists (n=9). Quantitatively, fidelity scores were calculated using percentage means and SD of components delivered. Associations between fidelity scores and physiotherapist variables were analysed using Spearman's correlations. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis to explore potential reasons for fidelity scores. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data occurred at an interpretation level using triangulation.

resultsQuantitatively, fidelity scores were high for all assessment methods; with self-report (92.7%) consistently higher than direct observations (82.7%) or audio-recordings (81.7%). There was significant variation between physiotherapists' individual scores (69.8% - 100%). Both qualitative and quantitative data (from physiotherapist variables) found that physiotherapists' knowledge (Spearman's association at p=0.003) and previous experience (p=0.008) were factors that influenced their fidelity. The qualitative data also postulated participant-level (eg, individual needs) and programme-level factors (eg, resources) as additional elements that influenced fidelity.

conclusionThe intervention was delivered with high fidelity. This study contributes to the limited evidence regarding fidelity assessment methods within complex behaviour change interventions. The findings suggest a combination of quantitative methods is suitable for the assessment of fidelity of delivery. A mixed methods approach provided a more insightful understanding of fidelity and its influencing factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49875385; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareResearch DesignSelf CareDelivery of Health CareFeasibility StudiesHumansLow Back PainObservationOsteoarthritisPain ManagementPhysical TherapistsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPilot ProjectsQualitative ResearchSelf Reportbehaviour changecomplex interventionsimplementation fidelityPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID28780544
PMCPMC5724095

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.