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。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Trials Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08659-9
V Lowers, R Kirby, B Young, R V Harris
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:初级牙科保健机构是具有重要战略意义的场所,在这里可以进行行为改变干预(bci)的随机对照试验(rct),以治疗口腔疾病。迄今为止的研究结果模棱两可。提高治疗保真度是提高脑机接口科学严谨性、一致性和实施的一种机制。美国国立卫生研究院行为改变联盟(NIH BCC)开发了一种工具来评估和评价健康行为改变干预措施中的治疗保真度,该工具尚未应用于初级牙科保健BCI文献。方法:我们对1980年至2023年间由牙科团队成员(在现实环境中)提供的初级牙科保健的随机对照试验进行了范围审查。使用NIH BCC检查表对符合条件的研究进行编码,以确定报告的保真度策略在各个领域的存在:设计、培训、交付、接收和制定。结果:我们纳入了34篇符合条件的文章,报告了21项随机对照试验。在NIH BCC领域之间和内部都发现了保真度报告的差异:策略报告在设计方面为9.5 - 85.7%,在培训方面为9.5 - 57.1%,在交付方面为0 - 66.7%,在接收方面为14.3 - 36.8%,在制定方面为13.3 - 33.3%。报道最多的领域是设计(M = 0.45),报道最少的领域是交付(M = 0.21)。只有一项研究报告了在每个领域超过50%的推荐策略。结论:本综述揭示了保真度报告的不一致性,没有证据表明在初级牙科保健试验中使用了保真度指南或框架。这突出了研究结果的可解释性、可靠性和可重复性问题。建议提出,以协助初级牙科保健试验者嵌入保真策略到未来的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing vaccine clinical trials participation among elderly: challenges and strategies. How to improve the quality of euglycemic glucose clamp tests in long-acting insulin studies. Assessing the effectiveness and the feasibility of a group-based treatment for self-stigma in people with mental disorders in routine mental health services in North-East Italy: study protocol for a pragmatic multisite randomized controlled trial. Distribution of trial registry numbers within full-text of PubMed Central articles: implications for linking trials to publications and indexing trial publication types. The impact of vitamin E supplementation on sperm analysis in varicocelectomy patients: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial.
×
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