Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31693797›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2020

Developing quality fidelity and engagement measures for complex health interventions.

Holly Walton, Aimee Spector, Morgan Williamson, Ildiko Tombor, Susan Michie

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of health psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.7field-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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Holly WaltonDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8746-059X
Aimee SpectorDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
Morgan WilliamsonSchool of Social Sciences, University of Westminster, London, UK.
Ildiko TomborDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, UK.
Susan MichieDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
University College London · GBUniversity of Westminster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand whether interventions are effective, we need to know whether the interventions are delivered as planned (with fidelity) and engaged with. To measure fidelity and engagement effectively, high-quality measures are needed. We outline a five-step method which can be used to develop quality measures of fidelity and engagement for complex health interventions. We provide examples from a fidelity study conducted within an evaluation of an intervention aimed to increase independence in dementia.

methodsWe propose five steps that can be systematically used to develop fidelity checklists for researchers, providers, and participants to measure fidelity and engagement. These steps include the following: (1) reviewing previous measures, (2) analysing intervention components and developing a framework outlining the content of the intervention, (3) developing fidelity checklists and coding guidelines, (4) obtaining feedback about the content and wording of checklists and guidelines, and (5) piloting and refining checklists and coding guidelines to assess and improve reliability.

resultsThree fidelity checklists that can be used reliably were developed to measure fidelity of and engagement with, the Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention. As these measures were designed to be used by researchers, providers, and participants, we developed two versions of the checklists: one for participants and one for researchers and providers.

conclusionsThe five steps that we propose can be used to develop psychometrically robust and implementable measures of fidelity and engagement for complex health interventions that can be used by different target audiences. By considering quality when developing measures, we can be more confident in the interpretation of intervention outcomes drawn from fidelity and engagement studies. Statement of contribution What is already known on the subject? Fidelity and engagement can be measured using a range of methods, such as observation and self-report. Studies seldom report psychometric and implementation qualities of fidelity measures. What does this study add? A method for developing fidelity and engagement measures for complex health interventions. Guidance on how to consider quality when developing fidelity and engagement measures.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingChecklistDelivery of Health CareDementiaFemaleHumansMalePatient CompliancePsychometricsReproducibility of Resultscomplex health interventiondementiaengagementfidelity of deliveryimplementationmeasurespsychometricquality

Identifiers

PMID31693797
PMCPMC7004004
OpenAlexW2985776811

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.