Haynes Abby, Brennan Sue, Redman Sally, Williamson Anna, Gallego Gisselle, Butow Phyllis
Sax Institute, Level 13 Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Fisher Road, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 24;11:23. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0378-6.
In this paper, we identify and respond to the fidelity assessment challenges posed by novel contextualised interventions (i.e. interventions that are informed by composite social and psychological theories and which incorporate standardised and flexible components in order to maximise effectiveness in complex settings). We (a) describe the difficulties of, and propose a method for, identifying the essential elements of a contextualised intervention; (b) provide a worked example of an approach for critiquing the validity of putative essential elements; and (c) demonstrate how essential elements can be refined during a trial without compromising the fidelity assessment. We used an exploratory test-and-refine process, drawing on empirical evidence from the process evaluation of Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT). Mixed methods data was triangulated to identify, critique and revise how the intervention's essential elements should be articulated and scored.
Over 50 provisional elements were refined to a final list of 20 and the scoring rationalised. Six (often overlapping) challenges to the validity of the essential elements were identified. They were (1) redundant-the element was not essential; (2) poorly articulated-unclear, too specific or not specific enough; (3) infeasible-it was not possible to implement the essential element as intended; (4) ineffective-the element did not effectively deliver the change principles; (5) paradoxical-counteracting vital goals or change principles; or (6) absent or suboptimal-additional or more effective ways of operationalising the theory were identified. We also identified potentially valuable 'prohibited' elements that could be used to help reduce threats to validity.
We devised a method for critiquing the construct validity of our intervention's essential elements and modifying how they were articulated and measured, while simultaneously using them as fidelity indicators. This process could be used or adapted for other contextualised interventions, taking evaluators closer to making theoretically and contextually sensitive decisions upon which to base fidelity assessments.
在本文中,我们识别并应对新型情境化干预措施(即基于综合社会和心理理论、包含标准化和灵活组件以在复杂环境中最大化有效性的干预措施)带来的保真度评估挑战。我们:(a)描述识别情境化干预措施基本要素的困难并提出一种方法;(b)提供一个批判假定基本要素有效性方法的实例;(c)展示如何在试验期间完善基本要素而不损害保真度评估。我们采用了探索性的测试与完善过程,借鉴了“以研究支持健康政策:一项干预试验”(SPIRIT)过程评估中的实证证据。对混合方法数据进行三角互证,以识别、批判并修订干预措施基本要素的阐述及评分方式。
50多个临时要素被提炼为最终的20个要素清单,并对评分进行了合理化处理。识别出了对基本要素有效性的六个(通常相互重叠)挑战。它们分别是:(1)冗余——该要素并非必不可少;(2)表述不佳——不清楚、过于具体或不够具体;(3)不可行——无法按预期实施基本要素;(4)无效——该要素未能有效传达变革原则;(5)自相矛盾——与关键目标或变革原则相抵触;或(6)缺失或次优——发现了实施该理论的其他或更有效的方式。我们还识别出了可能有价值的“禁止”要素,可用于帮助减少对有效性的威胁。
我们设计了一种方法来批判我们干预措施基本要素的结构效度,并修改其阐述和衡量方式,同时将它们用作保真度指标。这个过程可用于其他情境化干预措施或进行调整,使评估者更接近于做出理论和情境敏感的决策,以此为保真度评估提供依据。