Establishing consensus on domains and items for Reporting intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: the ReFiND Delphi study
Sousa, F.; Farlie, M. K.; Haines, T.; Borrelli, B.; Carroll, C.; Mathews, C.; Ribeiro, D. C.; Fritz, J. M.; Underwood, M.; Foster, N. E.; Lamb, S. E.; Sanchez, Z. M.; Malliaras, P.
Show abstract
Objectives: To develop consensus on core domains and items to inform a reporting guideline for intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND). Design: International, online three-round Delphi process. Methods: We invited researchers with expertise in intervention fidelity, non-drug, non-surgical trials, trial reporting, and process evaluation methods to take part in a three-round Delphi study. They rated the importance of 7 intervention fidelity domains and 79 items using a 9-point scale (1 to 3= not important, 4 to 6= important but not essential, 7 to 9= very important). A comment box was provided along with each domain and item for panellists to provide the rationale for their ratings. Consensus was defined as more than 70% of panellists rating 1-3 (exclusion) or 7-9 (inclusion) after two voting rounds. A summary of ratings and panellists rationale from Rounds One and Two were provided to panellists in Round Two and Three, respectively. We conducted a thematic analysis to synthesise qualitative data. Results: Sixty-one panellists completed Round One, 55 completed Round Two and 56 completed Round Three. Panellists had diverse backgrounds and were from 21 countries, including six low- and middle-income countries. After three rounds, five domains (Intervention Design, Intervention Fidelity Measurement Methods, Provider Training, Intervention Delivery by Providers, Intervention Receipt by Participants) and 20 items reached consensus for inclusion in the reporting guideline. Panellists rationale for their ratings was based on how specifically each domain and item related to intervention fidelity, how feasible it would be to implement in practice, and how broadly it could be applied across different contexts. Conclusions: Using systematic methods, this study reached consensus on a core set of domains and items for inclusion in ReFiND. This core set provides a foundation for consistent and transparent reporting of intervention fidelity and helps researchers and clinicians better interpret and replicate interventions tested in non-drug, non-surgical trials.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 95%
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 94%
- Number of Interventional Clinical Trials Registered per Million Population per Country Worldwide 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mixed methods implementation research of oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19 in low and middle-income countries: a study protocol 95%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 95%
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 94%
- Individual Participant Data Network Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence: Study protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 94%
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 92%
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- WICID framework Version 1.0: Criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19 94%
- Designathons in Health Research: A Global Systematic Review 93%
- State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.