Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2017 Aug 4;7(8):e015452.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015452.

Using mixed methods to assess fidelity of delivery and its influencing factors in a complex self-management intervention for people with osteoarthritis and low back pain

Affiliations
Observational Study

Using mixed methods to assess fidelity of delivery and its influencing factors in a complex self-management intervention for people with osteoarthritis and low back pain

Elaine Toomey et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives and design: Despite an increasing awareness of the importance of fidelity of delivery within complex behaviour change interventions, it is often poorly assessed. This mixed methods study aimed to establish the fidelity of delivery of a complex self-management intervention and explore the reasons for these findings using a convergent/triangulation design.

Setting: Feasibility trial of the Self-management of Osteoarthritis and Low back pain through Activity and Skills (SOLAS) intervention (ISRCTN49875385), delivered in primary care physiotherapy.

Methods and outcomes: 60 SOLAS sessions were delivered across seven sites by nine physiotherapists. Fidelity of delivery of prespecified intervention components was evaluated using (1) audio-recordings (n=60), direct observations (n=24) and self-report checklists (n=60) and (2) individual interviews with physiotherapists (n=9). Quantitatively, fidelity scores were calculated using percentage means and SD of components delivered. Associations between fidelity scores and physiotherapist variables were analysed using Spearman's correlations. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis to explore potential reasons for fidelity scores. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data occurred at an interpretation level using triangulation.

Results: Quantitatively, fidelity scores were high for all assessment methods; with self-report (92.7%) consistently higher than direct observations (82.7%) or audio-recordings (81.7%). There was significant variation between physiotherapists' individual scores (69.8% - 100%). Both qualitative and quantitative data (from physiotherapist variables) found that physiotherapists' knowledge (Spearman's association at p=0.003) and previous experience (p=0.008) were factors that influenced their fidelity. The qualitative data also postulated participant-level (eg, individual needs) and programme-level factors (eg, resources) as additional elements that influenced fidelity.

Conclusion: The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. This study contributes to the limited evidence regarding fidelity assessment methods within complex behaviour change interventions. The findings suggest a combination of quantitative methods is suitable for the assessment of fidelity of delivery. A mixed methods approach provided a more insightful understanding of fidelity and its influencing factors.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN49875385; Pre-results.

Keywords: PRIMARY CARE; behaviour change; complex interventions; implementation fidelity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagrammatic representation of mixed methods convergent/triangulation design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Visual representation of themes of qualitative interviews—factors influencing fidelity of Self-management of Osteoarthritis and Low back pain through Activity and Skills (SOLAS) delivery.

References

    1. Gearing RE, El-Bassel N, Ghesquiere A, et al. . Major ingredients of fidelity: a review and scientific guide to improving quality of intervention research implementation. Clin Psychol Rev 2011;31:79–88. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, et al. . A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science 2007;2:1–9. 10.1186/1748-5908-2-40 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Borrelli B, Sepinwall D, Ernst D, et al. . A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005;73:852–60. 10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.852 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the New Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337():a1655–6. 10.1136/bmj.a1655 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. . Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687 10.1136/bmj.g1687 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources