Strategies for Fidelity Monitoring a Solution-Focused Brief Intervention in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1007/s10880-025-10063-7
Zach W Cooper, Leslie Johnson
{"title":"Strategies for Fidelity Monitoring a Solution-Focused Brief Intervention in a Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Zach W Cooper, Leslie Johnson","doi":"10.1007/s10880-025-10063-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integrated Care (IC) models have increased, but the current mechanisms to analyze the efficacy and fidelity of behavioral interventions within IC models are limited. A mixed methods concurrent process evaluation was used within the context of a randomized clinical trial to assess intervention fidelity for a Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) intervention implemented within an IC model. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to develop a participant survey and charting template for the SFBT intervention. Quantitative data were collected through (1) participant surveys, (2) interventionist self-report surveys, and (3) data from participant charts. Descriptive statistics and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Data triangulation was used to present findings. The average SFBT intervention was 24.6 min and 33/34 (97%) of participants in the intervention group completed all 3 SFBT sessions. Most visits were weekly follow-ups (53.9%), followed by biweekly (28.2%) and then 3-week follow-ups (5.1%). The interventionist used session templates and a self-report checklist to monitor intervention integrity. Those in the intervention group had increased growth regarding Solution-focused core constructs (a scale created by the authors) when compared to the treatment-as-usual group (F [1, 64] = 22.7, p < 0.001): mean difference, 15.1 [95% CI 11.2 to 18.9]. Our study examined fidelity comprehensively and provides a foundation for studies interested in fidelity monitoring of SFBT interventions as well as behavioral interventions within IC models. Trial Registration: The study was pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05838222 on 01/05/2023.</p>","PeriodicalId":15494,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings","volume":" ","pages":"421-430"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-025-10063-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Integrated Care (IC) models have increased, but the current mechanisms to analyze the efficacy and fidelity of behavioral interventions within IC models are limited. A mixed methods concurrent process evaluation was used within the context of a randomized clinical trial to assess intervention fidelity for a Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) intervention implemented within an IC model. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to develop a participant survey and charting template for the SFBT intervention. Quantitative data were collected through (1) participant surveys, (2) interventionist self-report surveys, and (3) data from participant charts. Descriptive statistics and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Data triangulation was used to present findings. The average SFBT intervention was 24.6 min and 33/34 (97%) of participants in the intervention group completed all 3 SFBT sessions. Most visits were weekly follow-ups (53.9%), followed by biweekly (28.2%) and then 3-week follow-ups (5.1%). The interventionist used session templates and a self-report checklist to monitor intervention integrity. Those in the intervention group had increased growth regarding Solution-focused core constructs (a scale created by the authors) when compared to the treatment-as-usual group (F [1, 64] = 22.7, p < 0.001): mean difference, 15.1 [95% CI 11.2 to 18.9]. Our study examined fidelity comprehensively and provides a foundation for studies interested in fidelity monitoring of SFBT interventions as well as behavioral interventions within IC models. Trial Registration: The study was pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05838222 on 01/05/2023.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项随机临床试验中以解决方案为中心的短暂干预的保真度监测策略。
综合护理(IC)模型越来越多,但目前分析IC模型中行为干预的有效性和保真度的机制是有限的。在一项随机临床试验的背景下,使用混合方法并发过程评估来评估在IC模型中实施的以解决方案为重点的短期治疗(SFBT)干预的干预保真度。进行定性内容分析,为SFBT干预制定参与者调查和图表模板。定量数据通过(1)参与者调查、(2)干预者自述调查和(3)参与者图表数据收集。定量资料采用描述性统计和重复测量方差分析。使用数据三角测量来呈现结果。SFBT干预的平均时间为24.6分钟,干预组中33/34(97%)的参与者完成了所有3个SFBT会话。以每周随访为主(53.9%),其次为每两周随访(28.2%),最后为每3周随访(5.1%)。干预者使用会话模板和自我报告检查表来监测干预的完整性。与常规治疗组相比,干预组在以解决方案为中心的核心结构(作者创建的量表)方面的增长有所增加(F [1,64] = 22.7, p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers related to all areas of the science and practice of psychologists in medical settings. Manuscripts are chosen that have a broad appeal across psychology as well as other health care disciplines, reflecting varying backgrounds, interests, and specializations. The journal publishes original research, treatment outcome trials, meta-analyses, literature reviews, conceptual papers, brief scientific reports, and scholarly case studies. Papers accepted address clinical matters in medical settings; integrated care; health disparities; education and training of the future psychology workforce; interdisciplinary collaboration, training, and professionalism; licensing, credentialing, and privileging in hospital practice; research and practice ethics; professional development of psychologists in academic health centers; professional practice matters in medical settings; and cultural, economic, political, regulatory, and systems factors in health care. In summary, the journal provides a forum for papers predicted to have significant theoretical or practical importance for the application of psychology in medical settings.
期刊最新文献
Healthcare Staff Views on the Roles of Psychologists in Hospital Care: A Survey in Italy. Advancing Pain Care for Individuals with Sickle Cell Disease: Two Innovative Psychological Approaches. Group-Based Psychological Interventions for Autistic Youth with Chronic Pain: Narrative Review and Practice Considerations for Intensive Interdisciplinary Pediatric Pain Treatment. Feasibility of Mobile Phone-Based Virtual Reality as a Non-pharmacologic Acute Procedural Pain Management Intervention in an Inpatient Burn Center. Feasibility Outcomes from a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Brief Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain Among Military Veterans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1