You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 5, Issue 7
  • Evaluation of the fidelity of an interactive face-to-face educational intervention to improve general practitioner management of back pain

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Health services research
Research
Evaluation of the fidelity of an interactive face-to-face educational intervention to improve general practitioner management of back pain
  1. Simon D French1,2,
  2. Sally E Green1,
  3. Jill J Francis3,
  4. Rachelle Buchbinder1,4,
  5. Denise A O'Connor1,
  6. Jeremy M Grimshaw5,6,
  7. Susan Michie7
  1. 1School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Division of Health Services Research & Management, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK
  4. 4Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  6. 6Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  7. 7Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Simon D French; simon.french{at}queensu.ca

Abstract

Objectives Implementation intervention effects can only be fully realised and understood if they are faithfully delivered. However the evaluation of implementation intervention fidelity is not commonly undertaken. The IMPLEMENT intervention was designed to improve the management of low back pain by general medical practitioners. It consisted of a two-session interactive workshop, including didactic presentations and small group discussions by trained facilitators. This study aimed to evaluate the fidelity of the IMPLEMENT intervention by assessing: (1) observed facilitator adherence to planned behaviour change techniques (BCTs); (2) comparison of observed and self-reported adherence to planned BCTs and (3) variation across different facilitators and different BCTs.

Design The study compared planned and actual, and observed versus self-assessed delivery of BCTs during the IMPLEMENT workshops.

Method Workshop sessions were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Observed adherence of facilitators to the planned intervention was assessed by analysing the workshop transcripts in terms of BCTs delivered. Self-reported adherence was measured using a checklist completed at the end of each workshop session and was compared with the ‘gold standard’ of observed adherence using sensitivity and specificity analyses.

Results The overall observed adherence to planned BCTs was 79%, representing moderate-to-high intervention fidelity. There was no significant difference in adherence to BCTs between the facilitators. Sensitivity of self-reported adherence was 95% (95% CI 88 to 98) and specificity was 30% (95% CI 11 to 60).

Conclusions The findings suggest that the IMPLEMENT intervention was delivered with high levels of adherence to the planned intervention protocol.

Trial registration number The IMPLEMENT trial was registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN012606000098538 (http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?ID=1162).

  • PRIMARY CARE

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007886

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.