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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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