Treatment fidelity in the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) intervention assessed from recordings of advisor-participant consultations.

Q1 Medicine BMC Obesity Pub Date : 2018-09-10 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40608-018-0203-7
Lorraine M Noble, Emma Godfrey, Liane Al-Baba, Gabriella Baez, Nicki Thorogood, Kiran Nanchahal
{"title":"Treatment fidelity in the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) intervention assessed from recordings of advisor-participant consultations.","authors":"Lorraine M Noble,&nbsp;Emma Godfrey,&nbsp;Liane Al-Baba,&nbsp;Gabriella Baez,&nbsp;Nicki Thorogood,&nbsp;Kiran Nanchahal","doi":"10.1186/s40608-018-0203-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Variations in the delivery of content and process can alter the effectiveness of complex interventions. This study examined the fidelity of a weight loss intervention (Camden Weight Loss) from recorded consultations by assessing advisors' delivery of content, use of motivational interviewing approach and therapeutic alliance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A process evaluation was conducted of advisor-participant consultations in a 12-month randomised controlled trial of an intervention for adult volunteers with a body mass index categorised as overweight or obese. A convenience sample of 22 consultations (12% of 191 participants) recorded at the intervention mid-point were available for analysis. Consultations were independently rated by two observers independent of intervention or study delivery, using: a fidelity scale, the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale and the Primary Care Therapy Process Rating Scale. Raters were blind to participants' responses to the intervention and weight outcomes. Half the participants (<i>N</i> = 11) achieved significant weight loss (≥ 5% of baseline weight).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A mean of 41% of prescribed content was delivered, with a range covered per session of 8-98%, falling below the 100% content expected per session. Tasks included most frequently were: taking weight and waist measurements (98%), scheduling next appointment (86%), review of general progress (85%) and reviewing weight change (84%). Individual items most frequently addressed were 'giving encouragement' and 'showing appreciation of participant's efforts' (95 and 88% respectively). Consultation length (mean 19 min, range 9-30) was shorter than the 30-min allocation. Quantity of content correlated with consultation length (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Advisors' use of motivational interviewing was rated at 'beginner proficiency' for Global Clinician Rating, Reflection to Question Ratio and Percent Open Questions. Therapeutic alliance scores were moderate. Affective aspects were rated highly (e.g. supportive encouragement, involvement and warmth).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intervention fidelity varied in both content and process, emphasising the importance of ongoing fidelity checks in a complex intervention. Advisors focused on certain practical aspects of the intervention and providing an encouraging interpersonal climate. This concurs with other research findings, which have revealed the value participants in a weight loss intervention place on an empathic advisor-participant relationship.</p><p><strong>Clinical trials registration: </strong>Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00891943, on 1 May 2009.</p>","PeriodicalId":37440,"journal":{"name":"BMC Obesity","volume":"5 ","pages":"24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40608-018-0203-7","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Obesity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40608-018-0203-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Variations in the delivery of content and process can alter the effectiveness of complex interventions. This study examined the fidelity of a weight loss intervention (Camden Weight Loss) from recorded consultations by assessing advisors' delivery of content, use of motivational interviewing approach and therapeutic alliance.

Methods: A process evaluation was conducted of advisor-participant consultations in a 12-month randomised controlled trial of an intervention for adult volunteers with a body mass index categorised as overweight or obese. A convenience sample of 22 consultations (12% of 191 participants) recorded at the intervention mid-point were available for analysis. Consultations were independently rated by two observers independent of intervention or study delivery, using: a fidelity scale, the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale and the Primary Care Therapy Process Rating Scale. Raters were blind to participants' responses to the intervention and weight outcomes. Half the participants (N = 11) achieved significant weight loss (≥ 5% of baseline weight).

Results: A mean of 41% of prescribed content was delivered, with a range covered per session of 8-98%, falling below the 100% content expected per session. Tasks included most frequently were: taking weight and waist measurements (98%), scheduling next appointment (86%), review of general progress (85%) and reviewing weight change (84%). Individual items most frequently addressed were 'giving encouragement' and 'showing appreciation of participant's efforts' (95 and 88% respectively). Consultation length (mean 19 min, range 9-30) was shorter than the 30-min allocation. Quantity of content correlated with consultation length (p < 0.01). Advisors' use of motivational interviewing was rated at 'beginner proficiency' for Global Clinician Rating, Reflection to Question Ratio and Percent Open Questions. Therapeutic alliance scores were moderate. Affective aspects were rated highly (e.g. supportive encouragement, involvement and warmth).

Conclusions: Intervention fidelity varied in both content and process, emphasising the importance of ongoing fidelity checks in a complex intervention. Advisors focused on certain practical aspects of the intervention and providing an encouraging interpersonal climate. This concurs with other research findings, which have revealed the value participants in a weight loss intervention place on an empathic advisor-participant relationship.

Clinical trials registration: Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00891943, on 1 May 2009.

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
从顾问-参与者咨询记录评估卡姆登减肥(CAMWEL)干预的治疗保真度。
背景:内容和过程交付的变化可以改变复杂干预措施的有效性。本研究通过评估顾问的内容交付、动机性访谈方法的使用和治疗联盟,从记录咨询中检验了减肥干预(卡姆登减肥)的保真度。方法:在一项针对体重指数为超重或肥胖的成年志愿者的干预措施的12个月随机对照试验中,对顾问-参与者咨询进行过程评估。在干预中点记录的22个咨询样本(191名参与者的12%)可用于分析。咨询由两名独立于干预或研究交付的观察员独立评估,使用:保真度量表,动机访谈治疗完整性量表和初级保健治疗过程评定量表。评分者不知道参与者对干预和体重结果的反应。一半的参与者(N = 11)取得了显著的体重减轻(≥基线体重的5%)。结果:平均提供了规定内容的41%,每次治疗的覆盖范围为8-98%,低于每次治疗预期的100%。最常见的任务包括:测量体重和腰围(98%)、安排下一次预约(86%)、回顾总体进展(85%)和回顾体重变化(84%)。最常提到的个别项目是“给予鼓励”和“对参与者的努力表示赞赏”(分别为95%和88%)。咨询时间(平均19分钟,范围9-30)短于30分钟的分配。结论:干预保真度在内容和过程中都有所不同,强调了在复杂干预中持续进行保真度检查的重要性。顾问们专注于干预的某些实际方面,并提供一种令人鼓舞的人际氛围。这与其他研究结果相一致,这些研究结果揭示了减肥干预中参与者对移情顾问-参与者关系的重视。临床试验注册:于2009年5月1日在Clinicaltrials.gov注册,编号NCT00891943。
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
BMC Obesity
BMC Obesity Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Cesation (2019). Information not localized.
期刊最新文献
Family food environment factors associated with obesity outcomes in early childhood. Design and methods of the Healthy Kids & Families study: a parent-focused community health worker-delivered childhood obesity prevention intervention. Larger omental adipocytes correlate with greater Fetuin-A reduction following sleeve gastrectomy. "I love having a healthy lifestyle" - a qualitative study investigating body mass index trajectories from childhood to mid-adulthood. Family Spirit Nurture (FSN) - a randomized controlled trial to prevent early childhood obesity in American Indian populations: trial rationale and study protocol.
×
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:481959085
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