ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2025
Development of an early intervention in psychosis services fidelity questionnaire.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Redesigning a Fidelity Measurement Tool for Early Psychosis Services: Responding to Evolving Service Landscapes in Australia.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe describe the development of an online fidelity questionnaire for early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services, to be used in population-level research, and that can be completed using self-reports from EIP staff.
methodsA review of key literature sources on the components of EIP services was used to identify those components eligible for inclusion in the questionnaire. A modified Delphi approach, using experts in EIP services, was used to select the most important components to include in the questionnaire. To pilot test the questionnaire, two EIP staff members completed one fidelity questionnaire each, and a third questionnaire was completed by an external rater. Responses from the three sources were compared and used to revise the fidelity questionnaire.
resultsTwenty-two experts from England and Canada responded to two Delphi rounds, identifying the top 25 most important EIP service components. Some evidence-based components were not rated as highly as some non-evidence-based components. Pilot testing showed that the EIP staff rated fidelity higher than the external rater. Several questions were removed and/or revised based on the pilot study findings.
conclusionsFidelity instruments are limited by the available evidence and the personal experiences of experts used to develop them. As such, fidelity instruments and EIP services should continually be updated to reflect new knowledge. The online fidelity questionnaire was a simple and efficient way to collect data. Future evaluations of the fidelity questionnaire need to ensure that externally collected fidelity data are comprehensive and accurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39102066What 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.