{"title":"在初级牙科保健机构提供的行为改变试验中使用的保真策略的范围审查。","authors":"V Lowers, R Kirby, B Young, R V Harris","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08659-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary dental care settings are strategically important locations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behaviour change interventions (BCIs) can be tested to tackle oral diseases. Findings have so far produced equivocal results. Improving treatment fidelity is posed as a mechanism to improve scientific rigour, consistency and implementation of BCIs. The National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC) developed a tool to assess and evaluate treatment fidelity in health behaviour change interventions, which has yet to be applied to the primary dental care BCI literature.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of RCTs delivered in primary dental care by dental team members (in real-world settings) between 1980 and 2023. Eligible studies were coded using the NIH BCC checklist to determine the presence of reported fidelity strategies across domains: design, training, delivery, receipt and enactment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 34 eligible articles, reporting 21 RCTs. Fidelity reporting variations were found both between and within NIH BCC domains: strategy reporting ranged from 9.5 to 85.7% in design, 9.5 to 57.1% in training, 0 to 66.7% in delivery, 14.3 to 36.8% in receipt and 13.3 to 33.3% in enactment. The most reported domain was design (M = 0.45), and the least reported domain was delivery (M = 0.21). Only one study reported over 50% of the recommended strategies in every domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review revealed inconsistencies in fidelity reporting with no evidence that fidelity guidelines or frameworks were being used within primary dental care trials. This has highlighted issues with interpretability, reliability and reproducibility of research findings. Recommendations are proposed to assist primary dental care trialists with embedding fidelity strategies into future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"824"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653899/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping review of fidelity strategies used in behaviour change trials delivered in primary dental care settings.\",\"authors\":\"V Lowers, R Kirby, B Young, R V Harris\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-024-08659-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary dental care settings are strategically important locations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behaviour change interventions (BCIs) can be tested to tackle oral diseases. Findings have so far produced equivocal results. Improving treatment fidelity is posed as a mechanism to improve scientific rigour, consistency and implementation of BCIs. The National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC) developed a tool to assess and evaluate treatment fidelity in health behaviour change interventions, which has yet to be applied to the primary dental care BCI literature.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of RCTs delivered in primary dental care by dental team members (in real-world settings) between 1980 and 2023. Eligible studies were coded using the NIH BCC checklist to determine the presence of reported fidelity strategies across domains: design, training, delivery, receipt and enactment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 34 eligible articles, reporting 21 RCTs. Fidelity reporting variations were found both between and within NIH BCC domains: strategy reporting ranged from 9.5 to 85.7% in design, 9.5 to 57.1% in training, 0 to 66.7% in delivery, 14.3 to 36.8% in receipt and 13.3 to 33.3% in enactment. The most reported domain was design (M = 0.45), and the least reported domain was delivery (M = 0.21). Only one study reported over 50% of the recommended strategies in every domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review revealed inconsistencies in fidelity reporting with no evidence that fidelity guidelines or frameworks were being used within primary dental care trials. This has highlighted issues with interpretability, reliability and reproducibility of research findings. Recommendations are proposed to assist primary dental care trialists with embedding fidelity strategies into future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"824\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653899/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08659-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08659-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Scoping review of fidelity strategies used in behaviour change trials delivered in primary dental care settings.
Background: Primary dental care settings are strategically important locations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behaviour change interventions (BCIs) can be tested to tackle oral diseases. Findings have so far produced equivocal results. Improving treatment fidelity is posed as a mechanism to improve scientific rigour, consistency and implementation of BCIs. The National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC) developed a tool to assess and evaluate treatment fidelity in health behaviour change interventions, which has yet to be applied to the primary dental care BCI literature.
Method: We conducted a scoping review of RCTs delivered in primary dental care by dental team members (in real-world settings) between 1980 and 2023. Eligible studies were coded using the NIH BCC checklist to determine the presence of reported fidelity strategies across domains: design, training, delivery, receipt and enactment.
Results: We included 34 eligible articles, reporting 21 RCTs. Fidelity reporting variations were found both between and within NIH BCC domains: strategy reporting ranged from 9.5 to 85.7% in design, 9.5 to 57.1% in training, 0 to 66.7% in delivery, 14.3 to 36.8% in receipt and 13.3 to 33.3% in enactment. The most reported domain was design (M = 0.45), and the least reported domain was delivery (M = 0.21). Only one study reported over 50% of the recommended strategies in every domain.
Conclusions: This review revealed inconsistencies in fidelity reporting with no evidence that fidelity guidelines or frameworks were being used within primary dental care trials. This has highlighted issues with interpretability, reliability and reproducibility of research findings. Recommendations are proposed to assist primary dental care trialists with embedding fidelity strategies into future research.
期刊介绍:
Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.