The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions
The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-06
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Miller, Christopher J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stirman, Shannon Wiltsey;Baumann, Ana A.;Miller, Christopher J.
BackgroundThis本文描述了一个框架的改进过程和结果，以表征干预措施的修改。原始版本没有完全捕获可能对文件和报告很重要的修改和调整的几个方面。此外，早期的框架没有包括区分文化适应和出于其他原因的适应的方法。报告额外的元素将允许更准确地理解修改，修改或调整的过程，以及不同形式的修改和随后的健康和实施outcome.DiscussionWe采用了多方面的方法来开发更新的框架，涉及通过文献综述，快速编码的定性访谈，并通过多个利益相关者的细化过程中确定的编码文件。更新后的框架扩展了Stirman等人。的原始框架，通过添加修改的组件来报告：（1）在实施过程中何时以及如何进行修改，（2）修改是否是有计划的/主动的（即，适配）或非计划的/反应的，（3）谁确定应该进行修改，（4）修改什么，（5）在什么递送级别上进行修改，（6）上下文或内容级别修改的类型或性质，（7）修改的一致性程度，以及（8）修改的原因，包括（a）修改的意图或目标（例如，以降低成本）和（B）影响决策的背景因素。使用的框架来评估修改的方法概述，沿着与他们的优点和缺点，并考虑研究，以验证这些测量strategies.ConclusionThe更新的框架，包括考虑何时以及如何发生的修改，无论是计划内或计划外的，关系到保真度，修改的原因和目标。这一工具可用于支持关于修改循证干预措施的时机、性质、目标和原因以及影响的研究。
BackgroundThis paper describes the process and results of a refinement of a framework to characterize modifications to interventions. The original version did not fully capture several aspects of modification and adaptation that may be important to document and report. Additionally, the earlier framework did not include a way to differentiate cultural adaptation from adaptations made for other reasons. Reporting additional elements will allow for a more precise understanding of modifications, the process of modifying or adapting, and the relationship between different forms of modification and subsequent health and implementation outcomes.DiscussionWe employed a multifaceted approach to develop the updated FRAME involving coding documents identified through a literature review, rapid coding of qualitative interviews, and a refinement process informed by multiple stakeholders. The updated FRAME expands upon Stirman et al.'s original framework by adding components of modification to report: (1) when and how in the implementation process the modification was made, (2) whether the modification was planned/proactive (i.e., an adaptation) or unplanned/reactive, (3) who determined that the modification should be made, (4) what is modified, (5) at what level of delivery the modification is made, (6) type or nature of context or content-level modifications, (7) the extent to which the modification is fidelity-consistent, and (8) the reasons for the modification, including (a) the intent or goal of the modification (e.g., to reduce costs) and (b) contextual factors that influenced the decision. Methods of using the framework to assess modifications are outlined, along with their strengths and weaknesses, and considerations for research to validate these measurement strategies.ConclusionThe updated FRAME includes consideration of when and how modifications occurred, whether it was planned or unplanned, relationship to fidelity, and reasons and goals for modification. This tool that can be used to support research on the timing, nature, goals and reasons for, and impact of modifications to evidence-based interventions.