Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32938481›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2020

Examining fidelity in the INFORM trial: a complex team-based behavioral intervention.

Liane R Ginsburg, Matthias Hoben, Adam Easterbrook, Elizabeth Andersen, Ruth A Anderson, Lisa Cranley, Holly J Lanham, Peter G Norton, Lori E Weeks, Carole A Estabrooks

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Liane R GinsburgSchool of Health Policy & Management, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada. lgins@yorku.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4436-9198
Matthias HobenFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Adam EasterbrookFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Elizabeth AndersenSchool of Nursing, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, V2C 0C8, Canada.
Ruth A AndersonSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599-7460, USA.
Lisa CranleyLawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1P8, Canada.
Holly J LanhamUniversity of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, 78229, USA.
Peter G NortonCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4 N1, Canada.
Lori E WeeksSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada.
Carole A EstabrooksFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 341532
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFidelity in complex behavioral interventions is underexplored. This study examines the fidelity of the INFORM trial and explores the relationship between fidelity, study arm, and the trial's primary outcome-care aide involvement in formal team communications about resident care.

methodsA concurrent process evaluation of implementation fidelity was conducted in 33 nursing homes in Western Canada (Alberta and British Columbia). Study participants were from 106 clinical care units clustered in 33 nursing homes randomized to the Basic and Enhanced-Assisted Feedback arms of the INFORM trial.

resultsFidelity of the INFORM intervention was moderate to high, with fidelity delivery and receipt higher than fidelity enactment for both study arms. Higher enactment teams experienced a significantly larger improvement in formal team communications between baseline and follow-up than lower enactment teams (F(1, 70) = 4.27, p = .042).

conclusionsOverall fidelity enactment was associated with improvements in formal team communications, but the study arm was not. This suggests that the intensity with which an intervention is offered and delivered may be less important than the intensity with which intervention participants enact the core components of an intervention. Greater attention to fidelity assessment and publication of fidelity results through studies such as this one is critical to improving the utility of published trials.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyNursing HomesBritish ColumbiaDelivery of Health CareHumansPrimary Health CareNursing homesProcess evaluationTrial fidelity

Identifiers

PMID32938481
PMCPMC7493316

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.