Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32759848›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2020

Assessing Adherence, Competence and Differentiation in a Stepped-Wedge Randomised Clinical Trial of a Complex Behaviour Change Intervention.

Alison Kate Beck, Amanda L Baker, Gregory Carter, Chris Wratten, Judith Bauer, Luke Wolfenden, Kristen McCarter, Ben Britton

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Alison Kate BeckSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9031-2117
Amanda L BakerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Gregory CarterSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8180-1798
Chris WrattenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Waratah, NSW 2298, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6118-2421
Judith BauerCentre for Dietetics Research, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-5147
Luke WolfendenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Kristen McCarterSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2638-6381
Ben BrittonHunter New England Health, New Lambton 2305, Australia.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUCalvary Mater Newcastle Hospital · AUHunter New England Local Health District · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1021018; 2011/3654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA key challenge in behavioural medicine is developing interventions that can be delivered adequately (i.e., with fidelity) within real-world consultations. Accordingly, clinical trials should (but tend not to) report what is actually delivered (adherence), how well (competence) and the distinction between intervention and comparator conditions (differentiation). PURPOSE: To address this important clinical and research priority, we apply best practice guidelines to evaluate fidelity within a real-world, stepped-wedge evaluation of "EAT: Eating As Treatment", a new dietitian delivered health behaviour change intervention designed to reduce malnutrition in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy.

methodsDietitians (

resultsAchievement of adherence benchmarks varied. The majority of sessions attained competence. Post-training consultations were clearly distinct from routine care regarding motivational and behavioural, but not generic, skills.

conclusionsAlthough what level of fidelity is "good enough" remains an important research question, findings support the real-world feasibility of integrating EAT into dietetic consultations with HNC patients and provide a foundation for interpreting treatment effects.

Indexed as

AdultAustraliaBehavior TherapyClinical CompetenceDelivery of Health CareFemaleGuideline AdherenceHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMalnutritionMiddle AgedNutritionistsRadiation ExposureResearch Designbehavioural medicinebehaviour change counsellingfidelityhead and neck cancermotivational interviewingtranslational research

Identifiers

PMID32759848
PMCPMC7469004
OpenAlexW3047442426

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.