Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32317024›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Qualitative research to inform hypothesis testing for fidelity-based sub-group analysis in clinical trials: lessons learnt from the process evaluation of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention.

Arabella Scantlebury, Sarah Cockayne, Caroline Fairhurst, Sara Rodgers, David Torgerson, Catherine Hewitt, Joy Adamson, REFORM study

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arabella ScantleburyYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Sarah CockayneYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Caroline FairhurstYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Sara RodgersYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
David TorgersonYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Catherine HewittYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Joy AdamsonYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. joy.adamson@york.ac.uk.
REFORM study
University of York · GB

Funding

Department of Health 09/77/01Health Technology Assessment Programme 09/77/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring fidelity to complex interventions is a challenge when conducting pragmatic randomised controlled trials. We explore fidelity through a qualitative process evaluation, which was conducted alongside a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm cohort randomised controlled trial: the REFORM (Reducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention) trial. The paper aims, through a qualitative process evaluation, to explore some of the factors that may have affected the delivery of the REFORM intervention and highlight how project-specific fidelity can be assessed using a truly mixed-methods approach when informed by qualitative insights.

designSemi-structured qualitative interviews carried out as part of a process evaluation. Interviews were analysed thematically.

settingSeven NHS trusts in the UK and a University podiatry school in Ireland. Interviews were undertaken face-to-face or over the telephone.

participantsTwenty-one REFORM trial participants and 14 podiatrists who delivered the REFORM intervention.

resultsFactors affecting fidelity included: how similar the intervention was to routine practice; the challenges of delivering a multifaceted intervention to a heterogeneous older population; and practical issues with delivery such as time and training. Trial participants' views of the intervention, whether falls prevention is a personal priority, their experience of being part of a trial and individual factors such as medical conditions may also have affected intervention fidelity.

conclusionsOur process evaluation highlighted factors that were perceived to have affected the fidelity of the REFORM intervention and in doing so demonstrates the importance of considering fidelity when designing and evaluating pragmatic trials. We propose a number of recommendations of how important project-specific insights from qualitative work can be incorporated into the design of fidelity measurement of future trials, which build on existing conceptual fidelity frameworks. In particular, we encourage adopting a mixed-methods approach whereby qualitative insights can be used to suggest ways to enhance quantitative data collection facilitating integration through hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing and seeking explanation for trial findings. This will provide a framework of enabling measures of fidelity to be incorporated into the understanding of trial results which has been relatively neglected by existing literature.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN68240461. Registered on 01/07/2011.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentAccidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicIrelandMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicPodiatryPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicProcess Assessment, Health CareQualitative ResearchAgeingElderlyFallsFidelityMixed methodsProcess evaluationQualitativeRandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID32317024
PMCPMC7171824
OpenAlexW3017277811

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.