Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35646476›Full record

ReviewHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2022

Assessing and ensuring fidelity of the nationally implemented English NHS diabetes prevention programme: lessons learned for the implementation of large-scale behaviour change programmes.

Rhiannon E Hawkes, Lisa M Miles, Peter Bower, Sarah Cotterill, David P French

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rhiannon E HawkesManchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-8163
Lisa M MilesManchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8971-125X
Peter BowerDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9558-3349
Sarah CotterillDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5136-390X
David P FrenchManchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7663-7804
University of Manchester · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health services interventions are typically more effective in randomised controlled trials than in routine healthcare. One explanation for this 'voltage drop', i.e. reduction in effectiveness, is a reduction in intervention fidelity, i.e. the extent to which a programme is implemented as intended. This article discusses how to optimise intervention fidelity in nationally implemented behaviour change programmes, using as an exemplar the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP); a behaviour change intervention for adults in England at increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, delivered by four independent provider organisations. We summarise key findings from a thorough fidelity evaluation of the NHS-DPP assessing design (whether programme plans were in accordance with the evidence base), training (of staff to deliver key intervention components), delivery (of key intervention components), receipt (participant understanding of intervention content), and highlight lessons learned for the implementation of other large-scale programmes. Results: NHS-DPP providers delivered the majority of behaviour change content specified in their programme designs. However, a drift in fidelity was apparent at multiple points: from the evidence base, during programme commissioning, and on to providers' programme designs. A lack of clear theoretical rationale for the intervention contents was apparent in design, training, and delivery. Our evaluation suggests that many fidelity issues may have been less prevalent if there was a clear underpinning theory from the outset. Conclusion: We provide recommendations to enhance fidelity of nationally implemented behaviour change programmes. The involvement of a behaviour change specialist in clarifying the theory of change would minimise drift of key intervention content. Further, as loss of fidelity appears notable at the design stage, this should be given particular attention. Based on these recommendations, we describe examples of how we have worked with commissioners of the NHS-DPP to enhance fidelity of the next roll-out of the programme.

Indexed as

diabetes preventionhealth behaviour changeimplementation scienceIntervention fidelityprogramme implementation

Identifiers

PMID35646476
PMCPMC9132410
OpenAlexW4281289581

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.