Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31870306›Full record

Observational studyBMC geriatrics2019

Measuring fidelity of delivery of the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK intervention.

Holly Walton, Ildiko Tombor, Jane Burgess, Hilary Groarke, Tom Swinson, Jennifer Wenborn, Aimee Spector, Martin Orrell, Gail Mountain, Susan Michie

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC geriatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 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. Implementing Dementia Caregiver Programs in Real-World Settings: Fidelity Considerations.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Holly WaltonDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK. holly.walton@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8746-059X
Ildiko TomborDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK.
Jane BurgessResearch and Development Department, Goodmayes Hospital, North East London NHS Foundation Trust, Essex, UK.
Hilary GroarkeDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Tom SwinsonEast Hertfordshire and Broxbourne Adult Disability Team, Hertfordshire County Council, Stevenage, UK.
Jennifer WenbornResearch and Development Department, Goodmayes Hospital, North East London NHS Foundation Trust, Essex, UK.
Aimee SpectorDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Martin OrrellInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Gail MountainSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Susan MichieDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1417/A22962Department of Health RP-PG-0610-10108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterpreting data about intervention effectiveness requires an understanding of which intervention components were delivered and whether they were delivered as planned (fidelity of delivery). These studies aimed to develop a reliable measure for assessing fidelity of delivery of the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK intervention (COTiD-UK) (Study 1) and measure fidelity of delivery of COTiD-UK across sessions, sites and occupational therapists (Study 2).

methodsThe studies used a longitudinal observational design nested within a multi-site randomised controlled trial. Where practicable, all intervention sessions were audio-recorded. Fidelity checklists and coding guidelines were developed, piloted and refined until good agreement was achieved between two coders. Ten percent of sessions were purposively sampled from 12 sites and 31 occupational therapists. Transcripts were coded using checklists developed in Study 1; 10% of sets of intervention session transcripts were double coded to ensure that agreement was maintained. Percentages of components that were delivered were calculated for each session, site and occupational therapist.

resultsA reliable measure of fidelity of delivery for COTiD-UK was developed after several rounds of piloting and amendments. COTiD-UK was delivered with moderate fidelity across all six sessions (range: 52.4-75.5%). The mean range of fidelity varied across sites (26.7-91.2%) and occupational therapists (26.7-94.1%).

conclusionsA reliable, systematic method for measuring fidelity of delivery of COTiD-UK was developed and applied, and can be adapted for use in similar interventions. As COTiD-UK was delivered with moderate fidelity, there is a reasonable degree of confidence that intervention effects were attributable to COTiD-UK.

Indexed as

DementiaHumansOccupational TherapistsOccupational TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited KingdomComplex interventionDementiaFidelity of deliveryImplementationOccupational therapy

Identifiers

PMID31870306
PMCPMC6929510

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.