Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33446271›Full record

ArticleJournal of eating disorders2021

Assessing fidelity to family-based treatment: an exploratory examination of expert, therapist, parent, and peer ratings.

Jennifer Couturier, Melissa Kimber, Melanie Barwick, Gail McVey, Sheri Findlay, Cheryl Webb, Alison Niccols, James Lock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Jennifer CouturierDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. coutur@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3218-0168
Melissa KimberDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Melanie BarwickResearch Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Gail McVeyToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Sheri FindlayDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Cheryl WebbDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Alison NiccolsOfford Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
James LockDepartment of Psychiatry & Neurosciences, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFidelity is an essential component for evaluating the clinical and implementation outcomes related to delivery of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Effective measurement of fidelity requires clinical buy-in, and as such, requires a process that is not burdensome for clinicians and managers. As part of a larger implementation study, we examined fidelity to Family-Based Treatment (FBT) measured by several different raters including an expert, a peer, therapists themselves, and parents, with a goal of determining a pragmatic, reliable and efficient method to capture treatment fidelity to FBT.

methodsEach therapist audio-recorded at least one FBT case and submitted recordings from session 1, 2, and 3 from phase 1, plus one additional session from phase 1, two sessions from phase 2, and one session from phase 3. These submitted files were rated by an expert and a peer rater using a validated FBT fidelity measure. As well, therapists and parents rated fidelity immediately following each session and submitted ratings to the research team. Inter-observer reliability was calculated for each item using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), comparing the expert ratings to ratings from each of the other raters (parents, therapists, and peer). Mean scale scores were compared using repeated measures ANOVA.

resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients revealed that agreement was the best between expert and peer, with excellent, good, or fair agreement in 7 of 13 items from session 1, 2 and 3. There were only four such values when comparing expert to parent agreement, and two such values comparing expert to therapist ratings. The rest of the ICC values indicated poor agreement. Scale level analysis indicated that expert fidelity ratings for phase 1 treatment sessions scores were significantly higher than the peer ratings and, that parent fidelity ratings tended to be significantly higher than the other raters across all three treatment phases. There were no significant differences between expert and therapist mean scores.

conclusionsThere may be challenges inherent in parents rating fidelity accurately. Peer rating or therapist self-rating may be considered pragmatic, efficient, and reliable approaches to fidelity assessment for real-world clinical settings.

Indexed as

AdherenceAdolescentAnorexia nervosaFamily-based therapyFidelity

Identifiers

PMID33446271
PMCPMC7809847

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.