ArticlePEC innovation2026
Assessing fidelity of interventions to foster shared decision making in clinical encounters: Development of an implementation-focused fidelity checklist for use with electronic conversation aids.
Article in PEC innovation, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Conversation aids (CAs) support shared decision making (SDM) by presenting options and enabling the collaborative co-creation of care plans in clinical encounters. Fidelity assessment in implementation studies may require distinction between implementation of SDM and of the CA, as suboptimal CA implementation can disrupt SDM. We aimed to develop and pilot test an observer-based instrument for assessing implementation fidelity in a study of SDM using an electronic CA. Methods: Candidate items were guided by definitions of intervention components and constructs from (a) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's SHARE Approach, and (b) a conceptual framework of implementation fidelity. The instrument and coding manual were developed using video-recorded encounters. We assessed response distributions and inter-observer agreement. Results: The final instrument included 10 items assessing clinician behaviors and 12 potential moderators (3 tool integration, 4 quality of delivery, and 5 participant responsiveness). Observer agreement was moderate to very good on all items. It was lowest for the item assessing whether the tool displayed risk with auto-populated patient data like age and cholesterol. Conclusion: An adapted conceptual framework for implementation fidelity guided checklist development in key domains related to CA implementation and how clinicians use CAs to foster SDM. Innovation: This study demonstrates the feasibility of observing implementation fidelity of SDM interventions and introduces an approach that distinguishes fidelity of intervention implementation from the clinical practice of SDM. This distinction is critical for interpreting effectiveness outcomes in hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies and targeting implementation strategies to bolster routine adoption of SDM.
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.