Intervention fidelity assessment: A sub-study of the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS)

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL British Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2023-02-12 DOI:10.1111/bjhp.12651
Thomas M. Withers, Nikki J. Garner, Chris S. Thorley, Jo Kellett, Lucy Price, Sara Auckland, Jo Sheldon, Amanda Howe, Melanie Pascale, Jane R. Smith, Mike J. Sampson, Colin J. Greaves
{"title":"Intervention fidelity assessment: A sub-study of the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS)","authors":"Thomas M. Withers,&nbsp;Nikki J. Garner,&nbsp;Chris S. Thorley,&nbsp;Jo Kellett,&nbsp;Lucy Price,&nbsp;Sara Auckland,&nbsp;Jo Sheldon,&nbsp;Amanda Howe,&nbsp;Melanie Pascale,&nbsp;Jane R. Smith,&nbsp;Mike J. Sampson,&nbsp;Colin J. Greaves","doi":"10.1111/bjhp.12651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Previous research has shown that lifestyle modification can delay or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals. The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) was a parallel, three-arm, randomized controlled trial with up to 46 months follow-up that tested a group-delivered, theory-based lifestyle intervention to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk groups. The current study aimed to evaluate if the NDPS intervention was delivered to an acceptable standard and if any part(s) of the delivery required improvement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A sub-sample of 30, 25 for inter-rater reliability and audio-recordings of the NDPS intervention education sessions were assessed independently by two reviewers (CT, TW) using a 12-item checklist. Each item was scored on a 0–5 scale, with a score of 3 being defined as ‘adequate delivery’. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess changes in intervention fidelity as the facilitators gained experience.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Inter-rater agreement was acceptable (86%). A mean score of 3.47 (<i>SD</i> = .38) was achieved across all items of the fidelity checklist and across all intervention facilitators (<i>n</i> = 6). There was an apparent trend for intervention fidelity scores to decrease with experience; however, this trend was non-significant (<i>p</i> &gt; .05) across all domains in this small sample.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The NDPS was delivered to an acceptable standard by all Diabetes Prevention Facilitators. Further research is needed to better understand how the intervention's delivery characteristics can be optimized and how they might vary over time.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48161,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12651","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12651","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Previous research has shown that lifestyle modification can delay or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals. The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) was a parallel, three-arm, randomized controlled trial with up to 46 months follow-up that tested a group-delivered, theory-based lifestyle intervention to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk groups. The current study aimed to evaluate if the NDPS intervention was delivered to an acceptable standard and if any part(s) of the delivery required improvement.

Methods

A sub-sample of 30, 25 for inter-rater reliability and audio-recordings of the NDPS intervention education sessions were assessed independently by two reviewers (CT, TW) using a 12-item checklist. Each item was scored on a 0–5 scale, with a score of 3 being defined as ‘adequate delivery’. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess changes in intervention fidelity as the facilitators gained experience.

Results

Inter-rater agreement was acceptable (86%). A mean score of 3.47 (SD = .38) was achieved across all items of the fidelity checklist and across all intervention facilitators (n = 6). There was an apparent trend for intervention fidelity scores to decrease with experience; however, this trend was non-significant (p > .05) across all domains in this small sample.

Conclusion

The NDPS was delivered to an acceptable standard by all Diabetes Prevention Facilitators. Further research is needed to better understand how the intervention's delivery characteristics can be optimized and how they might vary over time.

Abstract Image

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
干预保真度评估:诺福克糖尿病预防研究(NDPS)的一项子研究
先前的研究表明,生活方式的改变可以延缓或预防高危人群2型糖尿病的发病。诺福克糖尿病预防研究(NDPS)是一项平行、三组、随机对照试验,随访长达46个月,测试了一种基于理论的生活方式干预,以减少高危人群中2型糖尿病的发病率。目前的研究旨在评估新发展计划的干预措施是否达到可接受的标准,以及是否有任何部分需要改进。方法采用一份12项检查表,分别选取30、25个分样本进行评估者间信度和NDPS干预教育课程的录音,由两名评估者(CT, TW)独立评估。每个项目的评分范围为0-5分,其中3分被定义为“充分交付”。评估评估者间信度。使用协方差分析(ANCOVA)来评估干预保真度随促进者获得经验的变化。结果评分者之间的一致性是可以接受的(86%)。所有项目和所有干预促进者(n = 6)的平均得分为3.47 (SD = .38)。干预保真度得分随经验的增加而降低;然而,在这个小样本中,这种趋势在所有领域都不显著(p > .05)。结论糖尿病预防促进者提供的NDPS达到了可接受的标准。需要进一步的研究来更好地了解如何优化干预措施的交付特性以及它们如何随时间变化。
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
British Journal of Health Psychology
British Journal of Health Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
1.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The focus of the British Journal of Health Psychology is to publish original research on various aspects of psychology that are related to health, health-related behavior, and illness throughout a person's life. The journal specifically seeks articles that are based on health psychology theory or discuss theoretical matters within the field.
期刊最新文献
Experienced facilitators and challenges of practising motivational interaction: How can pre-service physical education teachers adopt more motivational behaviours? A multiple behaviour temporal network analysis for health behaviours during COVID-19. Climate anxiety and its association with health behaviours and generalized anxiety: An intensive longitudinal study. Reducing information avoidance: The effectiveness of humour, cute animals and coping messages. A randomized feasibility trial evaluating the "My Changed Body" writing activity for people with endometriosis.
×
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