Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31752846›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

The Value Equation: Three complementary propositions for reconciling fidelity and adaptation in evidence-based practice implementation.

Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, Gregory A Aarons, Henna Hasson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing 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

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

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

5 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

3 authors.

Ulrica von Thiele SchwarzSchool of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, 721 23, Västerås, Sweden. ulrica.schwarz@mdh.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4771-8349
Gregory A AaronsChild and Adolescent Services Research Center, 3665 Kearny Villya Rd, Suie 200N, San Diego, CA, 92123, USA.
Henna HassonMedical Management Centre, LIME, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Mixed-Methods Study of EBP Sustainment in a Statewide Service SystemR01MH072961 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI AARONS, GREGORY · 2005 to 2016
$5.8M
Testing the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI) Intervention in Substance Abuse Treatment ProgramsR01DA038466 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI AARONS, GREGORY · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd DELG-2017/0024National Institute of Mental Health (US) R01MH072961NIDA NIH HHS R01DA038466Vetenskapsrådet 2016-01261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has long been debate about the balance between fidelity to evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and the need for adaptation for specific contexts or particular patients. The debate is relevant to virtually all clinical areas. This paper synthesises arguments from both fidelity and adaptation perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges involved, and proposes a theoretical and practical approach for how fidelity and adaptation can optimally be managed. DISCUSSION: There are convincing arguments in support of both fidelity and adaptations, representing the perspectives of intervention developers and internal validity on the one hand and users and external validity on the other. Instead of characterizing fidelity and adaptation as mutually exclusive, we propose that they may better be conceptualized as complimentary, representing two synergistic perspectives that can increase the relevance of research, and provide a practical way to approach the goal of optimizing patient outcomes. The theoretical approach proposed, the "Value Equation," provides a method for reconciling the fidelity and adaptation debate by putting it in relation to the value (V) that is produced. The equation involves three terms: intervention (IN), context (C), and implementation strategies (IS). Fidelity and adaptation determine how these terms are balanced and, in turn, the end product - the value it produces for patients, providers, organizations, and systems. The Value Equation summarizes three central propositions: 1) The end product of implementation efforts should emphasize overall value rather than only the intervention effects, 2) implementation strategies can be construed as a method to create fit between EBIs and context, and 3) transparency is vital; not only for the intervention but for all of the four terms of the equation. There are merits to arguments for both fidelity and adaptation. We propose a theoretical approach, a Value Equation, to reconciling the fidelity and adaptation debate. Although there are complexities in the equation and the propositions, we suggest that the Value Equation be used in developing and testing hypotheses that can help implementation science move toward a more granular understanding of the roles of fidelity and adaptation in the implementation process, and ultimately sustainability of practices that provide value to stakeholders.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchEvidence-Based PracticeHumansPatient-Centered CareAdherenceEvaluationFidelityModificationsSustainability theorySustainmentTheoryValidity

Identifiers

PMID31752846
PMCPMC6873662

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.