Effective dissemination and implementation (D&I) of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) assume that program strategies and methods will be conducted with “fidelity.” Fidelity has been defined as the “extent to which the intervention was delivered as planned. It represents the quality and integrity of the intervention as conceived by the developers.” This chapter discusses the importance of fidelity for D&I research, proposes a framework for considering factors that influence fidelity, and describes strategies for producing high fidelity in interventions. It presents an example of a community-based intervention and various attempts to assess fidelity, highlighting several key factors, processes, and challenges. The chapter concludes by summarizing implications of fidelity and adaptation issues on intervention dissemination for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers. The goal is to add conceptual clarity regarding fidelity across the study design spectrum.

Locate/Download Full Text . . .

Background

Understanding the process by which research is translated into practice is limited. This study sought to examine how interventions change during implementation.

Methods

Data were collected from July 2005 to September 2007. A real-time and cross-case comparison was conducted, examining ten interventions designed to improve health promotion in primary care practices in practice-based research networks. An iterative group process was used to analyze qualitative data (survey data, interviews, site visits, and project diary entries made by grantees approximately every 2 weeks) and to identify intervention adaptations reported during implementation.

Results

All interventions required changes as they were integrated into practice. Modifications differed by project and by practice, and were often unanticipated. Three broad categories of changes were identified and include modifications undertaken to accommodate practices' and patients' circumstances as well as personnel costs. In addition, research teams played a crucial role in fostering intervention uptake through their use of personal influence and by providing motivation, retraining, and instrumental assistance to practices. These efforts by the research teams, although rarely considered an essential component of the intervention, were an active ingredient in successful implementation and translation.

Conclusions

Changes are common when interventions are implemented into practice settings. The translation of evidence into practice will be improved when research design and reporting standards are modified to help quality-improvement teams understand both these adaptations and the effort required to implement interventions in practice.

Locate/Download Full Text . . .

The ‘5As’ model of behavior change provides a sequence of evidence-based clinician and office practice behaviors (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) that can be applied in primary care settings to address a broad range of behaviors and health conditions. Although the 5As approach is becoming more widely adopted as a strategy for health behavior change counseling, practical and standardized assessments of 5As delivery are not widely available. This article provides clinicians and researchers with alternatives for assessment of 5As implementation for both quality improvement, and for research and evaluation purposes, and presents several practical tools they may wish to use. Sample instruments for tracking delivery of the 5As and related tools that are in the public domain are provided to facilitate integration of self-management support into clinical care. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the various assessment approaches. Promising and practical measures to assess the 5As exist for both quality improvement and research purposes. Additional validation is needed on almost all current procedures, and both clinicians and researchers are encouraged to use these instruments and share the resulting data.

Locate/Download Full Text . . .

Background

Evidence-based interventions are frequently modified or adapted during the implementation process. Changes may be made to protocols to meet the needs of the target population or address differences between the context in which the intervention was originally designed and the one into which it is implemented [Addict Behav 2011, 36(6):630–635]. However, whether modification compromises or enhances the desired benefits of the intervention is not well understood. A challenge to understanding the impact of specific types of modifications is a lack of attention to characterizing the different types of changes that may occur. A system for classifying the types of modifications that are made when interventions and programs are implemented can facilitate efforts to understand the nature of modifications that are made in particular contexts as well as the impact of these modifications on outcomes of interest.

Methods

We developed a system for classifying modifications made to interventions and programs across a variety of fields and settings. We then coded 258 modifications identified in 32 published articles that described interventions implemented in routine care or community settings.

Results

We identified modifications made to the content of interventions, as well as to the context in which interventions are delivered. We identified 12 different types of content modifications, and our coding scheme also included ratings for the level at which these modifications were made (ranging from the individual patient level up to a hospital network or community). We identified five types of contextual modifications (changes to the format, setting, or patient population that do not in and of themselves alter the actual content of the intervention). We also developed codes to indicate who made the modifications and identified a smaller subset of modifications made to the ways that training or evaluations occur when evidence-based interventions are implemented. Rater agreement analyses indicated that the coding scheme can be used to reliably classify modifications described in research articles without overly burdensome training.

Conclusions

This coding system can complement research on fidelity and may advance research with the goal of understanding the impact of modifications made when evidence-based interventions are implemented. Such findings can further inform efforts to implement such interventions while preserving desired levels of program or intervention effectiveness.

Locate/Download Full Text . . .