Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37790175›Full record

ArticleImplementation research and practice

The adaptation and fidelity tool to support social service practitioners in balancing fidelity and adaptations: Longitudinal, mixed-method evaluation study.

Henna Hasson, Emma Hedberg Rundgren, Helena Strehlenert, Anna Gärdegård, Håkan Uvhagen, Charlotte Klinga, Åsa Hedberg Rundgren, Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

8 authors.

Henna HassonProcome Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3827-6841
Emma Hedberg RundgrenProcome Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4183-4645
Helena StrehlenertSOLIID Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4399-5592
Anna GärdegårdStockholm Research and Development, Unit for Social Services (FOU Nordväst), Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1308-8844
Håkan UvhagenProcome Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8374-6574
Charlotte KlingaProcome Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0512-8719
Åsa Hedberg RundgrenStockholm Gerontology Research Centre, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-8913
Ulrica von Thiele SchwarzProcome Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4771-8349

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) seldom fit seamlessly into a setting and are often adapted. The literature identifies practitioners' management of fidelity and adaptations as problematic but offers little guidance. This study aimed to investigate practitioners' perceptions of the feasibility and usability of an intervention aimed to support them in fidelity and adaptation management when working with EBIs. Methods: The intervention, the adaptation and fidelity tool (A-FiT), was developed based on the literature, along with input from social service practitioners and social services' Research and Development units' personnel. The intervention consisted of two workshops where the participants were guided through a five-step process to manage fidelity and adaptations. It was tested in a longitudinal mixed-method intervention study with 103 practitioners from 19 social service units in Stockholm, Sweden. A multimethod data collection was employed, which included interviews at follow-up, questionnaires at baseline and follow-up (readiness for change and self-rated knowledge), workshop evaluation questionnaires (usability and feasibility) after each workshop, and documentation (participants' notes on worksheets). To analyze the data, qualitative content analysis, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Results: Overall, the practitioners had a positive perception of the intervention and perceived it as relevant for fidelity and adaptation management (mean ratings over 7.0 on usability and feasibility). The workshops also provided new knowledge and skills to manage fidelity and adaptations. Furthermore, the intervention provided insights into the practitioners' understanding about adaptation and fidelity through a more reflective approach. Conclusion: Practical tools are needed to guide professionals not only to adhere to intervention core elements but also to help them to manage fidelity and adaptation. The proposed A-FiT intervention for practitioners' management of both fidelity and adaptation is a novel contribution to the implementation literature. Potentially, the next step is an evaluation of the intervention's impact in an experimental design.

Indexed as

adaptationevidence-basedmixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) evaluationpractice contexttreatment adherencetreatment fidelityuse of evidence

Identifiers

PMID37790175
PMCPMC10392202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.