Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36017707›Full record

SynthesisClinical trials (London, England)2022

Measures of fidelity of delivery and engagement in self-management interventions: A systematic review of measures.

Tasmin A Rookes, Anette Schrag, Kate Walters, Megan Armstrong

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical trials (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. A general framework for fidelity assessment.Frontiers in health services · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Co-Design of a Facilitated Self-Management Toolkit for People With Parkinson's Disease.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  10. Using co-design methods to develop new personalised support for people living with Long Covid: The 'LISTEN' intervention.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  11. Is implementation science a science? Not yet.Frontiers in public health · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
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

4 authors.

Tasmin A RookesCentre for Ageing Population Studies, Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6330-7059
Anette SchragDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Kate WaltersCentre for Ageing Population Studies, Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Megan ArmstrongCentre for Ageing Population Studies, Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsSelf-management interventions are increasingly being developed and researched to improve long-term condition outcomes. To understand and interpret findings, it is essential that fidelity of intervention delivery and participant engagement are measured and reported. Before developing fidelity checklists to assess treatment fidelity of interventions, current recommendations suggest that a synthesis of fidelity measures reported in the literature is completed. Therefore, here we aim to identify what the current measures of fidelity of intervention delivery and engagement for self-management interventions for long-term conditions are and whether there is treatment fidelity.

methodsFour databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus and ScienceDirect) and the journal implementation science were systematically searched to identify published reports from inception to December 2020 for experimental studies measuring fidelity of intervention delivery and/or participant engagement in self-management interventions for long-term conditions. Data on fidelity of delivery and engagement measures and the findings were extracted and synthesised.

resultsThirty-nine articles were identified as eligible, with 25 studies measuring fidelity of delivery, 19 reporting engagement and 5 measuring both. For fidelity of delivery, measures included structured checklists, participant completed measures and researcher observations/notes. These were completed by researchers, participants and intervention leaders. Often there was little information around the development of these measures, particularly when the measure had been developed by the researchers, rather than building on others work. Eighteen of 25 studies reported there was fidelity of intervention delivery. For engagement, measures included data analytics, participant completed measures and researcher observations. Ten out of 19 studies reported participants were engaged with the intervention.

conclusionIn complex self-management interventions, it is essential to assess whether treatment fidelity of each core component of interventions is delivered, as outlined in the protocol, to understand which components are having an effect. Treatment fidelity checklists comparing what was planned to be delivered, with what was delivered should be developed with pre-defined cut-offs for when fidelity has been achieved. Similarly, when measuring engagement, while data analytics continue to rise with the increase in digital interventions, clear cut-offs for participant use and content engaged with to be considered an engagement participant need to be pre-determined.

Indexed as

Self-ManagementChecklistDatabases, FactualData ScienceHumansMEDLINEengagementfidelityintervention deliverySelf-management

Identifiers

PMID36017707
PMCPMC9679554

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.