ArticleTrials2024
Scoping review of fidelity strategies used in behaviour change trials delivered in primary dental care settings.
Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary dental care settings are strategically important locations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behaviour change interventions (BCIs) can be tested to tackle oral diseases. Findings have so far produced equivocal results. Improving treatment fidelity is posed as a mechanism to improve scientific rigour, consistency and implementation of BCIs. The National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC) developed a tool to assess and evaluate treatment fidelity in health behaviour change interventions, which has yet to be applied to the primary dental care BCI literature.
methodWe conducted a scoping review of RCTs delivered in primary dental care by dental team members (in real-world settings) between 1980 and 2023. Eligible studies were coded using the NIH BCC checklist to determine the presence of reported fidelity strategies across domains: design, training, delivery, receipt and enactment.
resultsWe included 34 eligible articles, reporting 21 RCTs. Fidelity reporting variations were found both between and within NIH BCC domains: strategy reporting ranged from 9.5 to 85.7% in design, 9.5 to 57.1% in training, 0 to 66.7% in delivery, 14.3 to 36.8% in receipt and 13.3 to 33.3% in enactment. The most reported domain was design (M = 0.45), and the least reported domain was delivery (M = 0.21). Only one study reported over 50% of the recommended strategies in every domain.
conclusionsThis review revealed inconsistencies in fidelity reporting with no evidence that fidelity guidelines or frameworks were being used within primary dental care trials. This has highlighted issues with interpretability, reliability and reproducibility of research findings. Recommendations are proposed to assist primary dental care trialists with embedding fidelity strategies into future research.
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.