Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30876403›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2019

Implementation fidelity in a complex intervention promoting psychosocial well-being following stroke: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study.

Line Kildal Bragstad, Berit Arnesveen Bronken, Unni Sveen, Ellen Gabrielsen Hjelle, Gabriele Kitzmüller, Randi Martinsen, Kari J Kvigne, Margrete Mangset, Marit Kirkevold

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02338869 (Psycho-Social Well Being Following Stroke - A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT02338869 nacompletednot on this map

Psycho-Social Well Being Following Stroke - A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OsloRan2014 to 2018Enrolled322ConditionsStrokeArmsDialogue-based psychosocial rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Experiential Training Workshops for Group Antenatal Care in Malawi.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2022
    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

9 authors.

Line Kildal BragstadDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, P. O Box 4956 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. l.k.bragstad@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0002-9645-3770
Berit Arnesveen BronkenFaculty of Social and Health Sciences, Department of Health and Nursing Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 400, 2418, Elverum, Norway.
Unni SveenFaculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 4 St. Olavs Plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway.
Ellen Gabrielsen HjelleInstitute of Health and Society and Research Center for Habilitation and Rehabilitation Services and Models (CHARM), University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway.
Gabriele KitzmüllerFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health and Care Sciences, UIT, the Arctic University of Norway, P.O. Box 385, 8505, Narvik, Norway.
Randi MartinsenFaculty of Social and Health Sciences, Department of Health and Nursing Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 400, 2418, Elverum, Norway.
Kari J KvigneFaculty of Social and Health Sciences, Department of Health and Nursing Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 400, 2418, Elverum, Norway.
Margrete MangsetDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, P. O Box 4956 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Marit KirkevoldInstitute of Health and Society and Research Center for Habilitation and Rehabilitation Services and Models (CHARM), University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of complex interventions should include a process evaluation to give evaluators, researchers, and policy makers greater confidence in the outcomes reported from RCTs. Implementation fidelity can be part of a process evaluation and refers to the degree to which an intervention is delivered according to protocol. The aim of this implementation fidelity study was to evaluate to what extent a dialogue-based psychosocial intervention was delivered according to protocol. A modified conceptual framework for implementation fidelity was used to guide the analysis.

methodsThis study has an explanatory, sequential two-phase mixed methods design. Quantitative process data were collected longitudinally along with data collection in the RCT. Qualitative process data were collected after the last data collection point of the RCT. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted to describe the sample, the intervention trajectories, and the adherence measures. A scoring system to clarify quantitative measurement of the levels of implementation was constructed. The qualitative data sources were analyzed separately with a theory-driven content analysis using categories of adherence and potential moderating factors identified in the conceptual framework of implementation fidelity. The quantitative adherence results were extended with the results from the qualitative analysis to assess which potential moderators may have influenced implementation fidelity and in what way.

resultsThe results show that the core components of the intervention were delivered although the intervention trajectories were individualized. Based on the composite score of adherence, results show that 80.1% of the interventions in the RCT were implemented with high fidelity. Although it is challenging to assess the importance of each of the moderating factors in relation to the other factors and to their influence on the adherence measures, participant responsiveness, comprehensiveness of policy description, context, and recruitment appeared to be the most prominent moderating factors of implementation fidelity in this study.

conclusionsThis evaluation of implementation fidelity and the discussion of what constitutes high fidelity implementation of this intervention are crucial in understanding the factors influencing the trial outcome. The study also highlights important methodological considerations for researchers planning process evaluations and studies of implementation fidelity.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02338869; registered 10/04/2014.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ComplianceProgram EvaluationPsychiatric RehabilitationResearch DesignStrokeImplementation fidelityMixed methodsProcess evaluationPsychosocial interventionStroke

Identifiers

PMID30876403
PMCPMC6419826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.