Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36246092›Full record

ReviewSSM - population health2022

Measurement and assessment of fidelity and competence in nonspecialist-delivered, evidence-based behavioral and mental health interventions: A systematic review.

Laura Bond, Erik Simmons, Erika L Sabbath

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in SSM - population health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A general framework for fidelity assessment.Frontiers in health services · 2026
    Article
  8. Adaptation of a fidelity monitoring tool for online delivery of the Family Check-Up.Journal of educational and psychological consultation : the official journal of the Association for Educational and Psychological Consultants · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Laura BondBoston College School of Social Work, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA.
Erik SimmonsBoston College School of Social Work, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA.
Erika L SabbathBoston College School of Social Work, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nonspecialists have increasingly been used to deliver evidence-based, mental health and behavioral interventions in lower resource settings where there is a dearth of specialized providers and a corresponding gap in service delivery. Recent literature acknowledges that nonspecialist-delivered interventions are shown to be effective. However, few studies report on the fidelity (the degree to which an intervention was implemented as intended) and/or competence (general skills of nonspecialists), key concepts that measure quality of evidence-based intervention delivery. This study seeks to understand how both fidelity and competence have been assessed in nonspecialist-delivered, evidence-based interventions with an intended social or psychological behavior-change outcome. Our search results originally yielded 2317 studies, and ultimately, 16 were included in our final analysis. Generally, results from a narrative synthesis indicated that tools used in the studies demonstrated sufficient inter-rater reliability and intra-class correlation components. Included studies used and described a range of fidelity and competence tools. However, the ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors tool was the most commonly used tool that measures competence of nonspecialists, and has been adapted to several other settings. The roles of supervisors in mentoring, monitoring, and supervising nonspecialists emerged as a key ingredient for ensuring fidelity. Most studies assessing fidelity were limited by small sample sizes due to low numbers of nonspecialists implementing interventions, however, more advanced statistical methods may not be needed and may actually impede community-based organizations from assessing fidelity data. Our results suggest interventions can share resources, tools, and compare findings regardless with proper supervision. While the two terms "fidelity" and "competence" are often used interchangeably, their differences are noteworthy. Ultimately, both competency and fidelity are critical for delivering evidence-based interventions, and nonspecialists are most effective when they can be evaluated and mentored on both throughout the course of the intervention.

Indexed as

CompetenceEBI, Evidence-based interventionENACT, ENhancing Assessment of Common TherapeuticEvidence-based interventionFidelityLMICs, Low- and middle-income countriesmhGAP, Mental Health Gap Action ProgrammeMHPSS, Mental health and psycho-social supportNonspecialistPRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesQuality of deliveryTask-shiftingWHO, World Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID36246092
PMCPMC9563630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.