Cargando…
A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol
BACKGROUND: In England, NHS Blood and Transplant conducts national audits of transfusion and provides feedback to hospitals to promote evidence-based practice. Audits demonstrate 20% of transfusions fall outside guidelines. The AFFINITIE programme (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153878/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27955683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0528-x |
_version_ | 1782474784094814208 |
---|---|
author | Lorencatto, Fabiana Gould, Natalie J. McIntyre, Stephen A. During, Camilla Bird, Jon Walwyn, Rebecca Cicero, Robert Glidewell, Liz Hartley, Suzanne Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie Grimshaw, Jeremy M. Michie, Susan Francis, Jill J. |
author_facet | Lorencatto, Fabiana Gould, Natalie J. McIntyre, Stephen A. During, Camilla Bird, Jon Walwyn, Rebecca Cicero, Robert Glidewell, Liz Hartley, Suzanne Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie Grimshaw, Jeremy M. Michie, Susan Francis, Jill J. |
author_sort | Lorencatto, Fabiana |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In England, NHS Blood and Transplant conducts national audits of transfusion and provides feedback to hospitals to promote evidence-based practice. Audits demonstrate 20% of transfusions fall outside guidelines. The AFFINITIE programme (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE) involves two linked, 2×2 factorial, cluster-randomised trials, each evaluating two theoretically-enhanced audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions in UK hospitals. The first intervention concerns the content/format of feedback reports. The second aims to support hospital transfusion staff to plan their response to feedback and includes a web-based toolkit and telephone support. Interpretation of trials is enhanced by comprehensively assessing intervention fidelity. However, reviews demonstrate fidelity evaluations are often limited, typically only assessing whether interventions were delivered as intended. This protocol presents methods for assessing fidelity across five dimensions proposed by the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, including intervention designer-, provider- and recipient-levels. METHODS: (1) Design: Intervention content will be specified in intervention manuals in terms of component behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Treatment differentiation will be examined by comparing BCTs across intervention/standard practice, noting the proportion of unique/convergent BCTs. (2) Training: draft feedback reports and audio-recorded role-play telephone support scenarios will be content analysed to assess intervention providers’ competence to deliver manual-specified BCTs. (3) Delivery: intervention materials (feedback reports, toolkit) and audio-recorded telephone support session transcripts will be content analysed to assess actual delivery of manual-specified BCTs during the intervention period. (4) Receipt and (5) enactment: questionnaires, semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, and objective web-analytics data (report downloads, toolkit usage patterns) will be analysed to assess hospital transfusion staff exposure to, understanding and enactment of the interventions, and to identify contextual barriers/enablers to implementation. Associations between observed fidelity and trial outcomes (% unnecessary transfusions) will be examined using mediation analyses. DISCUSSION: If the interventions have acceptable fidelity, then results of the AFFINITIE trials can be attributed to effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of the interventions. Hence, this comprehensive assessment of fidelity will be used to interpret trial findings. These methods may inform fidelity assessments in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15490813. Registered 11/03/2015 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0528-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5153878 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51538782016-12-20 A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol Lorencatto, Fabiana Gould, Natalie J. McIntyre, Stephen A. During, Camilla Bird, Jon Walwyn, Rebecca Cicero, Robert Glidewell, Liz Hartley, Suzanne Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie Grimshaw, Jeremy M. Michie, Susan Francis, Jill J. Implement Sci Study Protocol BACKGROUND: In England, NHS Blood and Transplant conducts national audits of transfusion and provides feedback to hospitals to promote evidence-based practice. Audits demonstrate 20% of transfusions fall outside guidelines. The AFFINITIE programme (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE) involves two linked, 2×2 factorial, cluster-randomised trials, each evaluating two theoretically-enhanced audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions in UK hospitals. The first intervention concerns the content/format of feedback reports. The second aims to support hospital transfusion staff to plan their response to feedback and includes a web-based toolkit and telephone support. Interpretation of trials is enhanced by comprehensively assessing intervention fidelity. However, reviews demonstrate fidelity evaluations are often limited, typically only assessing whether interventions were delivered as intended. This protocol presents methods for assessing fidelity across five dimensions proposed by the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, including intervention designer-, provider- and recipient-levels. METHODS: (1) Design: Intervention content will be specified in intervention manuals in terms of component behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Treatment differentiation will be examined by comparing BCTs across intervention/standard practice, noting the proportion of unique/convergent BCTs. (2) Training: draft feedback reports and audio-recorded role-play telephone support scenarios will be content analysed to assess intervention providers’ competence to deliver manual-specified BCTs. (3) Delivery: intervention materials (feedback reports, toolkit) and audio-recorded telephone support session transcripts will be content analysed to assess actual delivery of manual-specified BCTs during the intervention period. (4) Receipt and (5) enactment: questionnaires, semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, and objective web-analytics data (report downloads, toolkit usage patterns) will be analysed to assess hospital transfusion staff exposure to, understanding and enactment of the interventions, and to identify contextual barriers/enablers to implementation. Associations between observed fidelity and trial outcomes (% unnecessary transfusions) will be examined using mediation analyses. DISCUSSION: If the interventions have acceptable fidelity, then results of the AFFINITIE trials can be attributed to effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of the interventions. Hence, this comprehensive assessment of fidelity will be used to interpret trial findings. These methods may inform fidelity assessments in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15490813. Registered 11/03/2015 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0528-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5153878/ /pubmed/27955683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0528-x Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Lorencatto, Fabiana Gould, Natalie J. McIntyre, Stephen A. During, Camilla Bird, Jon Walwyn, Rebecca Cicero, Robert Glidewell, Liz Hartley, Suzanne Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie Grimshaw, Jeremy M. Michie, Susan Francis, Jill J. A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol |
title | A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol |
title_full | A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol |
title_fullStr | A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol |
title_short | A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol |
title_sort | multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153878/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27955683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0528-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lorencattofabiana amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT gouldnataliej amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT mcintyrestephena amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT duringcamilla amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT birdjon amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT walwynrebecca amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT cicerorobert amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT glidewellliz amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT hartleysuzanne amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT stanworthsimonj amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT foyrobbie amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT grimshawjeremym amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT michiesusan amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT francisjillj amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT amultidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT lorencattofabiana multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT gouldnataliej multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT mcintyrestephena multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT duringcamilla multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT birdjon multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT walwynrebecca multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT cicerorobert multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT glidewellliz multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT hartleysuzanne multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT stanworthsimonj multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT foyrobbie multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT grimshawjeremym multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT michiesusan multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT francisjillj multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol AT multidimensionalapproachtoassessinginterventionfidelityinaprocessevaluationofauditandfeedbackinterventionstoreduceunnecessarybloodtransfusionsastudyprotocol |