ArticleBMC family practice2021
Fidelity evaluation of the compared procedures for conducting the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy to optimize diabetes prevention in primary care.
Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03254979 (How to Engage Primary Health Care Providers in an Inter-professional Collaborative Modeling Process for the Optimization of Type-2 Diabetes Primary Prevention), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
How to Engage Primary Health Care Providers in an Inter-professional Collaborative Modeling Process for the Optimization of Type-2 Diabetes Primary Prevention: a Randomized Hybrid Implementation Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of two procedures for deploying a facilitated collaborative modeling implementation strategy-the PVS-PREDIAPS strategy-to optimize type 2 diabetes prevention in primary care: the PREDIAPS cluster randomized hybrid type II implementation trial.Implementation science : IS · 2021Trial
- Comparative effectiveness of non-reflective and reflective strategies to favor de-implementation of low-value prescribing for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: the DE-imFAR cluster randomized implementation trial.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Bridging evidence and practice: multi-method evaluation of implementation fidelity of a multilevel hypertension intervention in a federally qualified health center.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Implementation of diabetes prevention programs into clinical practice and community settings: a systematic search and review.Implementation science communications · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessing the fidelity of an implementation strategy is important to understand why and how the strategy influences the uptake of evidence-based interventions. The present study aims to assess the fidelity of the two procedures for engaging primary care (PC) professionals and for the deployment of an implementation strategy for optimizing type 2 diabetes prevention in routine PC within the PREDIAPS randomized cluster implementation trial.
methodWe conducted a mixed-method fidelity evaluation study of the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy. Nine PC centers from the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza) were allocated to two different procedures to engage physicians and nurses and deploy a implementation strategy to model and adapt the clinical intervention and its implementation to their specific contexts: a Global procedure, promoting the cooperation of all healthcare professionals from the beginning; or a Sequential procedure, centered first on nurses who then pursued the pragmatic cooperation of physicians. Process indicators of the delivery and receipt of implementation strategy actions, documented modifications to the planned implementation strategy, and a structured group interview with centers' leaders were all used to assess the following components of fidelity: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, professionals' responsiveness and program differentiation.
resultsGenerally, the procedures compared for professionals engagement and deployment of the implementation strategy were carried out with the planned differentiation. Nonetheless, some unexpected between-group differences were observed, the initial rate of collaboration of nurses being higher in the Sequential (93%) than in the Global (67%) groups. Exposure rate to the programed implementation actions (% of hours received out of those delivered) were similar in both groups by professional category, with nurses (86%) having a higher rate of exposure than physicians (75%). Professionals identified half of the planned discrete strategies and their rating of strategies' perceived usefulness was overwhelmingly positive, with few differences between Sequential and Global centers.
conclusionsThe PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy has been implemented with high fidelity and minor unplanned reactive modifications. Professionals' exposure to the implementation strategy was high in both groups. The centers' organizational context (i.e., work overload) led to small mismatches between groups in participation and exposure of professionals to implementation actions.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03254979 . Registered 16 August 2017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.