Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31746091›Full record

Observational studyBritish journal of health psychology2020

Translating a walking intervention for health professional delivery within primary care: A mixed-methods treatment fidelity assessment.

Stefanie L Williams, Jennifer McSharry, Claire Taylor, Jeremy Dale, Susan Michie, David P French

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Is the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme Intervention Delivered as Planned? An Observational Study of Fidelity of Intervention Delivery.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2021
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

6 authors.

Stefanie L WilliamsCentre for Intelligent Healthcare, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9473-6446
Jennifer McSharryHealth Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Claire TaylorPublic Health Warwickshire, Warwickshire County Council, Warwick, UK.
Jeremy DaleWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Susan MichieDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
David P FrenchManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701821
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExisting fidelity studies of physical activity interventions are limited in methodological quality and rigour, particularly those delivered by health care providers in clinical settings. The present study aimed to enhance and assess the fidelity of a walking intervention delivered by health care providers within general practice in line with the NIH Behavior Change Consortium treatment fidelity framework.

designTwo practice nurses and six health care assistants delivered a theory-based walking intervention to 63 patients in their own practices. A cross-sectional mixed-methods study assessed fidelity related to treatment delivery and treatment receipt, from the perspectives of health care providers and patients.

methodsAll providers received training and demonstrated delivery competence prior to the trial. Delivery of intervention content was coded from audio-recordings using a standardized checklist. Qualitative interviews with 12 patients were conducted to assess patient perspectives of treatment receipt and analysed using framework analysis.

resultsOverall, 78% of intervention components were delivered as per the protocol (range 36-91%), with greater fidelity for components requiring active engagement from patients (e.g., completion of worksheets). The qualitative data highlighted differences in patients' comprehension of specific intervention components. Understanding of, and engagement with, motivational components aimed at improving self-efficacy was poorer than for volitional planning components.

conclusionsHigh levels of fidelity of delivery were demonstrated. However, patient-, provider-, and component-level factors impacted on treatment delivery and receipt. We recommend that methods for the enhancement and assessment of treatment fidelity are consistently implemented to enhance the rigour of physical activity intervention research. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Physical activity interventions delivered within primary care by health professionals have so far demonstrated limited impact on behaviour change initiation and maintenance. Treatment fidelity enhancement and assessment strategies can support the successful translation of behaviour change interventions into real-life settings. Few studies have examined treatment fidelity within the context of physical activity interventions, particularly within clinical settings, and existing fidelity studies are limited by methodological quality and rigour. What does this study add? High levels of fidelity were found for a physical activity intervention delivered in primary care. Patient-, provider-, and component-level factors may impact on treatment delivery and receipt. The implementation of best practice fidelity recommendations can support near-optimal fidelity.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesExercise TherapyFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePrimary Health CareUnited KingdomWalkingYoung Adultgeneral practiceimplementationinterventionintervention fidelityphysical activityprimary caretreatment fidelitywalking

Identifiers

PMID31746091
PMCPMC7003875

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.