Limits...
Evaluation of the fidelity of an interactive face-to-face educational intervention to improve general practitioner management of back pain.

French SD, Green SE, Francis JJ, Buchbinder R, O'Connor DA, Grimshaw JM, Michie S - BMJ Open (2015)

Bottom Line: Implementation intervention effects can only be fully realised and understood if they are faithfully 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.There was no significant difference in adherence to BCTs between the facilitators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Observed fidelity of behaviour change techniques delivered across all sessions, for each individual session and for each facilitator.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499726&req=5

BMJOPEN2015007886F1: Observed fidelity of behaviour change techniques delivered across all sessions, for each individual session and for each facilitator.

Mentions: The percentage of BCTs delivered across all sessions, for each session, and for each facilitator is shown in figure 1. For session I, at least 80% of the planned BCTs were delivered, and in three of the session I workshops, 100% of the planned BCTs were delivered. For session II, on no occasion were all of the planned BCTs delivered, with the percentage of planned BCTs delivered in session II ranging from 53% to 84%. There were significantly less BCTs delivered as planned in session II compared with session I (χ2 test (df=1)=16.6, p<0.001). Facilitator adherence to the planned BCT delivery varied from 86% to 100% for session 1 and 53% to 79% for session II, but any difference between facilitators was not statistically significant (χ2 test (df=5)=9.7, p=0.08).


Evaluation of the fidelity of an interactive face-to-face educational intervention to improve general practitioner management of back pain.

French SD, Green SE, Francis JJ, Buchbinder R, O'Connor DA, Grimshaw JM, Michie S - BMJ Open (2015)

Observed fidelity of behaviour change techniques delivered across all sessions, for each individual session and for each facilitator.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499726&req=5

BMJOPEN2015007886F1: Observed fidelity of behaviour change techniques delivered across all sessions, for each individual session and for each facilitator.
Mentions: The percentage of BCTs delivered across all sessions, for each session, and for each facilitator is shown in figure 1. For session I, at least 80% of the planned BCTs were delivered, and in three of the session I workshops, 100% of the planned BCTs were delivered. For session II, on no occasion were all of the planned BCTs delivered, with the percentage of planned BCTs delivered in session II ranging from 53% to 84%. There were significantly less BCTs delivered as planned in session II compared with session I (χ2 test (df=1)=16.6, p<0.001). Facilitator adherence to the planned BCT delivery varied from 86% to 100% for session 1 and 53% to 79% for session II, but any difference between facilitators was not statistically significant (χ2 test (df=5)=9.7, p=0.08).

Bottom Line: Implementation intervention effects can only be fully realised and understood if they are faithfully 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.There was no significant difference in adherence to BCTs between the facilitators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus