ArticleResearch square2024
A Case Study of the Development of a Valid and Pragmatic Implementation Science Measure: The Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing Mental Health Interventions (BeFITS-MH) Measure.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Few implementation science (IS) measures have been evaluated for validity, reliability and Methods: We summarize conceptual and empirical work that informed the development of the BeFITS-MH measure, including a description of the Delphi process, detailed translation and local adaptation procedures, and concurrent pilot testing. As validity and reliability are key aspects of measure development, we also report on our process of assessing the measure's construct validity and utility for the implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results: Continuous stakeholder involvement and concurrent pilot testing resulted in several adaptations of the BeFITS-MH measure's structure, scaling, and format to enhance contextual relevance and utility. Adaptations of broad terms such as "program," "provider type," and "type of service" were necessary due to the heterogeneous nature of interventions, type of task-sharing providers employed, and clients served across the three global sites. Item selection benefited from the iterative process, enabling identification of relevance of key aspects of identified barriers and facilitators, and what aspects were common across sites. Program implementers' conceptions of utility regarding the measure's acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were seen to cluster across several common categories. Conclusions: This case study provides a rigorous, multi-step process for developing a pragmatic IS measure. The process and lessons learned will aid in the teaching, practice and research of IS measurement development. The importance of including experiences and knowledge from different types of stakeholders in different global settings was reinforced and resulted in a more globally useful measure while allowing for locally-relevant adaptation. To increase the relevance of the measure it is important to target actionable domains that predict markers of utility (e.g., successful uptake) per program implementers' preferences. With this case study, we provide a detailed roadmap for others seeking to develop and validate IS measures that maximize local utility and impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.