National Center for PTSD and Stanford University, 795 Willow Road NC-PTSD, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Implement Sci. 2019 Jun 6;14(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y.
This paper describes the process and results of a refinement of a framework to characterize modifications to interventions. The original version did not fully capture several aspects of modification and adaptation that may be important to document and report. Additionally, the earlier framework did not include a way to differentiate cultural adaptation from adaptations made for other reasons. Reporting additional elements will allow for a more precise understanding of modifications, the process of modifying or adapting, and the relationship between different forms of modification and subsequent health and implementation outcomes.
We employed a multifaceted approach to develop the updated FRAME involving coding documents identified through a literature review, rapid coding of qualitative interviews, and a refinement process informed by multiple stakeholders. The updated FRAME expands upon Stirman et al.'s original framework by adding components of modification to report: (1) when and how in the implementation process the modification was made, (2) whether the modification was planned/proactive (i.e., an adaptation) or unplanned/reactive, (3) who determined that the modification should be made, (4) what is modified, (5) at what level of delivery the modification is made, (6) type or nature of context or content-level modifications, (7) the extent to which the modification is fidelity-consistent, and (8) the reasons for the modification, including (a) the intent or goal of the modification (e.g., to reduce costs) and (b) contextual factors that influenced the decision. Methods of using the framework to assess modifications are outlined, along with their strengths and weaknesses, and considerations for research to validate these measurement strategies.
The updated FRAME includes consideration of when and how modifications occurred, whether it was planned or unplanned, relationship to fidelity, and reasons and goals for modification. This tool that can be used to support research on the timing, nature, goals and reasons for, and impact of modifications to evidence-based interventions.
本文描述了对一个用于描述干预措施修改的框架进行细化的过程和结果。原始版本并未完全捕捉到可能需要记录和报告的几个修改和适应方面。此外,早期的框架也没有包括区分文化适应与出于其他原因进行的适应的方法。报告更多的要素将使我们能够更准确地了解修改、修改或适应的过程,以及不同形式的修改与后续健康和实施结果之间的关系。
我们采用了多方面的方法来开发更新的 FRAME,其中包括对文献综述中确定的文件进行编码、快速对定性访谈进行编码,以及由多个利益相关者提供信息的细化过程。更新的 FRAME 通过添加要报告的修改部分扩展了 Stirman 等人的原始框架:(1)在实施过程中何时以及如何进行修改,(2)修改是计划/主动的(即适应)还是非计划/被动的,(3)谁决定进行修改,(4)修改了什么,(5)在交付的哪个级别进行修改,(6)内容级别修改的类型或性质,(7)修改的一致性程度,以及(8)修改的原因,包括(a)修改的意图或目标(例如,降低成本)和(b)影响决策的背景因素。概述了使用该框架评估修改的方法,以及它们的优缺点,并考虑了研究验证这些测量策略的问题。
更新的 FRAME 包括考虑修改发生的时间和方式、是否计划或非计划、与保真度的关系以及修改的原因和目标。该工具可用于支持对基于证据的干预措施的修改的时间、性质、目标和原因以及对其的影响进行研究。