Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30231917›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

Surveying knowledge, practice and attitudes towards intervention fidelity within trials of complex healthcare interventions.

Daragh McGee, Fabiana Lorencatto, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Elaine Toomey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Daragh McGeeSchool of Medicine, Clinical Science Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 TK33.
Fabiana LorencattoCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Karen Matvienko-SikarSchool of Public Health, Western Gateway Building, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, T12 YN60.
Elaine ToomeyHealth Behaviour Change Research Group, Room 2058, School of Psychology, Arts Millennium Building, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 TK33. Elaine.toomey@nuigalway.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5941-0838
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntervention fidelity is the degree to which interventions have been implemented as intended by their developers. Assessing fidelity is crucial for accurate interpretation of intervention effectiveness, but fidelity is often poorly addressed within trials of complex healthcare interventions. The reasons for this are unclear, and information on the use of methods to enhance and assess fidelity in trials of complex interventions remains insufficient. This study aimed to explore the knowledge, practice and attitudes towards intervention fidelity amongst researchers, triallists and healthcare professionals involved with the design and conduct of trials of complex healthcare interventions.

methodsAn online survey consisting of closed and open-ended questions exploring four sections (Demographics, Fidelity knowledge, Practice and Attitudes) was conducted. This was an opportunistic sample of individuals with experience of direct involvement in trials of complex healthcare interventions (e.g. design/development, conduct, evaluation).

resultsData from 264 participants representing 15 countries were analysed. The majority (65.9%, n = 174) of participants identified themselves as 'Researchers'. The majority of participants were familiar with the term "intervention fidelity" (69.7%, n = 184) and indicated that fidelity is important (89.7%, n = 236). Mean self-reported understanding of fidelity was moderate. Although 68% (n = 182) had previously used strategies to assess (e.g. audio/video-recording sessions) and enhance (e.g. training manual) fidelity in trials of complex interventions, only a limited proportion of participants indicated always reporting these strategies in subsequent publications (30.9%, n = 56). Poor knowledge or understanding was the most commonly cited barrier to addressing intervention fidelity in trials (77.4%, n = 202). Over half of respondents (52.1%, n = 137) had never completed specific fidelity training or research, and the vast majority (89.7%, n = 236) would welcome specific training in this area.

conclusionDespite good awareness of intervention fidelity and its importance, poor knowledge and understanding appears to be a key factor limiting how intervention fidelity is addressed in trials of complex interventions. Participants identified a need for further training and education in this area. Additionally, clarification of the terminology, definition and components of intervention fidelity would facilitate better understanding of the concept. A discrepancy between participants' use of fidelity strategies and subsequent reporting raises concerns around inadequate fidelity reporting in the trials literature.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeResearch DesignAdultAwarenessClinical Trials as TopicComprehensionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminology as TopicComplex interventionsIntervention fidelityRandomised control trialsResearch methodsSurvey

Identifiers

PMID30231917
PMCPMC6147031
OpenAlexW2889679667

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.