Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Research article

Fidelity evaluation of the compared procedures for conducting the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy to optimize diabetes prevention in primary care

Authors: Alvaro Sánchez, Heather L. Rogers, Susana Pablo, Esther García, Inmaculada Rodríguez, Mª. Antonia Flores, Olga Galarza, Ana B. Gaztañaga, Pedro A. Martínez, Eider Alberdi, Elena Resines, Ana I. Llarena, Gonzalo Grandes, on behalf of the PREDIAPS Group

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Assessing the fidelity of an implementation strategy is important to understand why and how the strategy influences the uptake of evidence-based interventions. The present study aims to assess the fidelity of the two procedures for engaging primary care (PC) professionals and for the deployment of an implementation strategy for optimizing type 2 diabetes prevention in routine PC within the PREDIAPS randomized cluster implementation trial.

Method

We conducted a mixed-method fidelity evaluation study of the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy. Nine PC centers from the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza) were allocated to two different procedures to engage physicians and nurses and deploy a implementation strategy to model and adapt the clinical intervention and its implementation to their specific contexts: a Global procedure, promoting the cooperation of all healthcare professionals from the beginning; or a Sequential procedure, centered first on nurses who then pursued the pragmatic cooperation of physicians. Process indicators of the delivery and receipt of implementation strategy actions, documented modifications to the planned implementation strategy, and a structured group interview with centers’ leaders were all used to assess the following components of fidelity: adherence, dose, quality of delivery, professionals’ responsiveness and program differentiation.

Results

Generally, the procedures compared for professionals engagement and deployment of the implementation strategy were carried out with the planned differentiation. Nonetheless, some unexpected between-group differences were observed, the initial rate of collaboration of nurses being higher in the Sequential (93%) than in the Global (67%) groups. Exposure rate to the programed implementation actions (% of hours received out of those delivered) were similar in both groups by professional category, with nurses (86%) having a higher rate of exposure than physicians (75%). Professionals identified half of the planned discrete strategies and their rating of strategies’ perceived usefulness was overwhelmingly positive, with few differences between Sequential and Global centers.

Conclusions

The PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy has been implemented with high fidelity and minor unplanned reactive modifications. Professionals’ exposure to the implementation strategy was high in both groups. The centers’ organizational context (i.e., work overload) led to small mismatches between groups in participation and exposure of professionals to implementation actions.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.​gov identifier: NCT03254979. Registered 16 August 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007;2:40.CrossRef
2.
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38:65–76.CrossRef
3.
Cross WF, West JC. Examining implementer fidelity: conceptualizing and measuring adherence and competence. J Child Serv. 2011;6:18–33.CrossRef
4.
Slaughter SE, Hill JN, Snelgrove-Clarke E. What is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2015;10:129.CrossRef
5.
Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen WB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:237–256. 2.
6.
Kemp CG, Wagenaar BH, Haroz EE. Expanding hybrid studies for implementation research: intervention, implementation strategy, and context. Front Public Health. 2019;7:325.CrossRef
7.
Gearing RE, El-Bassel N, Ghesquiere A, Baldwin S, Gillies J, Ngeow E. Major ingredients of fidelity: a review and scientific guide to improving quality of intervention research implementation. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31:79–88.CrossRef
8.
Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev. 1998;18:23–45.CrossRef
9.
Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15.CrossRef
10.
Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:134–47.CrossRef
11.
Dobson KS, Singer AR. Definitional and practical issues in the assessment of treatment fidelity. Clin Psychol Rev. 2005;12:384–7.
12.
Glasgow RE, Lichenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1261–7.CrossRef
13.
Sánchez A, Silvestre C, Campo N, Grandes G. PreDE research group. Type-2 diabetes primary prevention program implemented in routine primary care: a process evaluation study. Trials. 2016;17(1):254.CrossRef
14.
Butel J, Braun KL, Novotny R, Acosta M, Castro R, Fleming T, Powers J, Nigg CR. Assessing intervention fidelity in a multi-level, multi-component, multi-site program: the Children’s healthy living (CHL) program. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(4):460–9.CrossRef
15.
Sanchez A, Grandes G, Pablo S, Espinosa M, Torres A, García-Alvarez A. PREDIAPS Group. Engaging primary care professionals in collaborative processes for 28rioritiza type 2 diabetes prevention practice: the PREDIAPS cluster 28rioritiza type II hybrid implementation trial. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):94.CrossRef
16.
Sanchez A, Silvestre C, Cortazar A, Bellido V, Ezkurra P, Rotaeche Del Campo R, et al. Prevención de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en Atención Primaria de Salud mediante estilos de vida saludables: cuidados e intervención clínica recomendada. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Department of Health, Government of the Basque Country; 2016.
17.
Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Kirchner JE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21.CrossRef
18.
Wiltsey Stirman S, Baumann AA, Miller CJ. The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):58.CrossRef
19.
Huynh AK, Hamilton AB, Farmer MM, Bean-Mayberry B, Stirman SW, Moin T, Finley EP. A pragmatic approach to guide implementation evaluation research: strategy mapping for complex interventions. Front Public Health. 2018;6:134.CrossRef
20.
Domínguez-Berjón MF, Borrell C, Cano-Serral G, Esnaola S, Nolasco A, et al. Constructing a deprivation index based on census data in large Spanish cities (the MEDEA project). Gac Sanit. 2008;22:179–87.CrossRef
21.
Parchman ML, Anderson ML, Dorr DA, Fagnan LJ, O’Meara ES, Tuzzio L, Penfold RB, Cook AJ, Hummel J, Conway C, Cholan R, Baldwin LM. A randomized trial of external practice support to improve cardiovascular risk factors in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(Suppl 1):S40–9.CrossRef
22.
23.
Mold JW, Walsh M, Chou AF, Homco JB. The alarming rate of major disruptive events in primary care practices in Oklahoma. Ann Fam Med. 2018;16(Suppl 1):S52–7.CrossRef
24.
Egeland KM, Ruud T, Ogden T, Färdig R, Lindstrøm JC, Heiervang KS. How to implement illness management and recovery (IMR) in mental health service settings: evaluation of the implementation strategy. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2017;11:13.CrossRef
25.
Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF, Etz RS, Balasubramanian BA, Donahue KE, Leviton LC, et al. Fidelity versus flexibility: translating evidence-based research into practice. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:S381–9.CrossRef
26.
Liddy C, Singh J, Guo M, Hogg W. Physician perspectives on a tailored multifaceted primary care practice facilitation intervention for improvement of cardiovascular care. Fam Pract. 2016;33(1):89–94.CrossRef
27.
28.
Rogers ES, Cuthel AM, Berry CA, Kaplan SA, Shelley DR. Clinician perspectives on the benefits of practice facilitation for small primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(Suppl 1):S17–23.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Fidelity evaluation of the compared procedures for conducting the PVS-PREDIAPS implementation strategy to optimize diabetes prevention in primary care
Authors
Alvaro Sánchez
Heather L. Rogers
Susana Pablo
Esther García
Inmaculada Rodríguez
Mª. Antonia Flores
Olga Galarza
Ana B. Gaztañaga
Pedro A. Martínez
Eider Alberdi
Elena Resines
Ana I. Llarena
Gonzalo Grandes
on behalf of the PREDIAPS Group
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01378-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Primary Care 1/2021 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Mobile application for monitoring patients under home oxygen therapy: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research

Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up: results from the population-based PROFILES registry

Study protocol

PRimary care rEsponse to domestic violence and abuse in the COvid-19 panDEmic (PRECODE): protocol of a rapid mixed-methods study in the UK

Research

Attitudes towards chiropractic: a repeated cross-sectional survey of Canadian family physicians

Research

Patients’ experiences of the use of point-of-care ultrasound in general practice – a cross-sectional study

Research article

May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners’ daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients’ intentions towards this approach