How Has Intervention Fidelity Been Assessed in Smoking Cessation Interventions? A Systematic Review.
How Has Intervention Fidelity Been Assessed in Smoking Cessation Interventions? A Systematic Review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1155/2021/6641208
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Lorencatto F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Begum S;Yada A;Lorencatto F
干预保真度涉及干预措施按预期实施的程度。保真度框架提出保真度是一个多维度的概念，在干预设计者，提供者和接受者的水平相关，但在多大程度上，它是多维度评估尚不清楚。戒烟干预是复杂的，包括多个组件，通常在多个会话和/或在临床实践中的规模交付;这增加了他们交付的保真度的易感性变化。本综述检查了行为改变联盟保真度框架（设计，培训，交付，接收和制定）的五个维度在戒烟干预措施的保真度评估（随机对照试验（RCT））中的评估程度。 使用术语“戒烟”、“干预”、“保真度”和“随机对照试验”检索了5个电子数据库。符合条件的研究包括戒烟行为干预的RCT，在框架发布后的2006年发表，报告忠诚度评估。数据提取表是围绕该框架编制的，该框架具体规定了关于每个层面的评估和报告的若干项目。数据提取包括研究特征、评估的维度、数据收集和分析策略。计算每个维度的得分，表明其存在。 共审查了55项研究。用于评估保真度的数据收集方法差异很大。分娩的保真度是最常见的评估，并与干预结果相关（73%的研究）。根据该框架，制定的保真度得分最高（平均为92.7%），培训的保真度得分最低（平均为37.1%）。只有四分之一的研究将保真度数据与结果联系起来（27%）。 在方法和分析方法方面存在着很大的差异，无法进行比较和综合。为了实现保真度研究的潜力，以增加对观察到的试验结果的解释的科学信心，研究应包括保真度数据和结果之间的关联分析。调查结果强调了改进忠诚度评价和报告做法的建议。
Intervention fidelity concerns the degree to which interventions are implemented as intended. Fidelity frameworks propose fidelity is a multidimensional concept relevant at intervention designer, provider, and recipient levels; yet the extent to which it is assessed multidimensionally is unclear. Smoking cessation interventions are complex, including multiple components, often delivered over multiple sessions and/or at scale in clinical practice; this increases susceptibility variation in the fidelity with which they are delivered. This review examined the extent to which five dimensions from the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework (design, training, delivery, receipt, and enactment) were assessed in fidelity assessments of smoking cessation interventions (randomised control trials (RCTs)). Five electronic databases were searched using terms “smoking cessation,” “interventions,” “fidelity,” and “randomised control trials.” Eligible studies included RCTs of smoking cessation behavioural interventions, published post 2006 after publication of the framework, reporting assessment of fidelity. The data extraction form was structured around the framework, which specifies a number of items regarding assessment and reporting of each dimension. Data extraction included study characteristics, dimensions assessed, data collection, and analysis strategies. A score per dimension was calculated, indicating its presence. 55 studies were reviewed. There was a wide variability in data collection approaches used to assess fidelity. Fidelity of delivery was the most commonly assessed and linked to the intervention outcomes (73% of the studies). Fidelity of enactment scored the highest according to the framework (average of 92.7%), and fidelity of training scored the lowest (average of 37.1%). Only a quarter of studies linked fidelity data to outcomes (27%). There is wide variability in methodological and analytical approaches that precludes comparison and synthesis. In order to realise the potential of fidelity investigations to increase scientific confidence in the interpretation of observed trial outcomes, studies should include analyses of the association between fidelity data and outcomes. Findings have highlighted recommendations for improving fidelity evaluations and reporting practices.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.h1258
发表时间：
2015-03-19
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Moore GF;Audrey S;Barker M;Bond L;Bonell C;Hardeman W;Moore L;O'Cathain A;Tinati T;Wight D;Baird J
通讯作者：
Baird J
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Lorencatto, Fabiana;West, Robert;Michie, Susan
通讯作者：
Michie, Susan
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.b2535
发表时间：
2009-07-21
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Moher D;Liberati A;Tetzlaff J;Altman DG;PRISMA Group
通讯作者：
PRISMA Group
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
McGee D;Lorencatto F;Matvienko-Sikar K;Toomey E
通讯作者：
Toomey E
影响因子：
6
作者：
Brose, Leonie S.;McEwen, Andy;West, Robert
通讯作者：
West, Robert