Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34380575›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2021

Understanding the value of adhering to or adapting evidence-based interventions: a study protocol of a discrete choice experiment.

Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, Aaron R Lyon, Kristoffer Pettersson, Fabrizia Giannotta, Pernilla Liedgren, Henna Hasson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Ulrica von Thiele SchwarzSchool of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, Västerås, Sweden. ulrica.schwarz@mdh.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4771-8349
Aaron R LyonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kristoffer PetterssonSchool of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, Västerås, Sweden.
Fabrizia GiannottaSchool of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, Västerås, Sweden.
Pernilla LiedgrenSchool of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, Västerås, Sweden.
Henna HassonProcome, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd 2020-01223
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhereas the value of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) is often determined by its effect on clinical outcomes, the value of implementing and using EBIs in practice is broader, reflecting qualities such as appropriateness, equity, costs, and impact. Reconciling these value conflicts involves a complicated decision process that has received very limited scholarly attention. Inspired by studies on decision-making, the objective of this project is to explore how practitioners appraise the values of different outcomes and to test how this appraisal influences their decisions surrounding the so-called fidelity-adaptation dilemma. This dilemma is related to the balance between using an EBI as it was designed (to ensure its effectiveness) and making appropriate adaptations (to ensure alignment with constraints and possibilities in the local context).

methodsThis project consists of three sub-studies. The participants will be professionals leading evidence-based parental programs in Sweden and, in Sub-study 1, parents and decision-makers. Sub-study 1 will use sequential focus groups and individual interviews to explore parameters that influence fidelity and adaptation decisions-the dilemmas encountered, available options, how outcomes are valued by practitioners as well as other stakeholders, and value trade-offs. Sub-study 2 is a discrete choice experiment that will test how value appraisals influence decision-making using data from Sub-study 1 as input. Sub-study 3 uses a mixed-method design, with findings from the two preceding sub-studies as input in focus group interviews to investigate how practitioners make sense of findings from optimal decision situations (experiment) and constrained, real-world decision situations. DISCUSSION: The project will offer unique insights into decision-making processes that influence how EBIs are used in practice. Such knowledge is needed for a more granular understanding of how practitioners manage the fidelity-adaptation dilemma and thus, ultimately, how the value of EBI implementation can be optimized. This study contributes to our knowledge of what happens once EBIs are adopted-that is, the gap between the way in which EBIs are intended to be used and the way in which they are used in practice.

Indexed as

AdaptationAdherenceDecision-makingDiscrete choice experimentEvidence-based interventionsFidelity–adaptation dilemmaParental supportProfessionals

Identifiers

PMID34380575
PMCPMC8356451

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.