Intervention fidelity assessment: A sub‐study of the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS).
Saved in:
| Title: | Intervention fidelity assessment: A sub‐study of the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Withers, Thomas M. (AUTHOR), Garner, Nikki J. (AUTHOR), Thorley, Chris S. (AUTHOR), Kellett, Jo (AUTHOR), Price, Lucy (AUTHOR), Auckland, Sara (AUTHOR), Sheldon, Jo (AUTHOR), Howe, Amanda (AUTHOR), Pascale, Melanie (AUTHOR), Smith, Jane R. (AUTHOR), Sampson, Mike J. (AUTHOR), Greaves, Colin J. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | British Journal of Health Psychology. Sep2023, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p740-752. 13p. 5 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Type 2 diabetes, Diabetes, Analysis of covariance |
| Abstract: | Background: Previous research has shown that lifestyle modification can delay or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes in high‐risk individuals. The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) was a parallel, three‐arm, randomized controlled trial with up to 46 months follow‐up that tested a group‐delivered, theory‐based lifestyle intervention to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high‐risk groups. The current study aimed to evaluate if the NDPS intervention was delivered to an acceptable standard and if any part(s) of the delivery required improvement. Methods: A sub‐sample of 30, 25 for inter‐rater reliability and audio‐recordings of the NDPS intervention education sessions were assessed independently by two reviewers (CT, TW) using a 12‐item checklist. Each item was scored on a 0–5 scale, with a score of 3 being defined as 'adequate delivery'. Inter‐rater reliability was assessed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess changes in intervention fidelity as the facilitators gained experience. Results: Inter‐rater agreement was acceptable (86%). A mean score of 3.47 (SD =.38) was achieved across all items of the fidelity checklist and across all intervention facilitators (n = 6). There was an apparent trend for intervention fidelity scores to decrease with experience; however, this trend was non‐significant (p >.05) across all domains in this small sample. Conclusion: The NDPS was delivered to an acceptable standard by all Diabetes Prevention Facilitators. Further research is needed to better understand how the intervention's delivery characteristics can be optimized and how they might vary over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Health Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Previous research has shown that lifestyle modification can delay or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes in high‐risk individuals. The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) was a parallel, three‐arm, randomized controlled trial with up to 46 months follow‐up that tested a group‐delivered, theory‐based lifestyle intervention to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high‐risk groups. The current study aimed to evaluate if the NDPS intervention was delivered to an acceptable standard and if any part(s) of the delivery required improvement. Methods: A sub‐sample of 30, 25 for inter‐rater reliability and audio‐recordings of the NDPS intervention education sessions were assessed independently by two reviewers (CT, TW) using a 12‐item checklist. Each item was scored on a 0–5 scale, with a score of 3 being defined as 'adequate delivery'. Inter‐rater reliability was assessed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess changes in intervention fidelity as the facilitators gained experience. Results: Inter‐rater agreement was acceptable (86%). A mean score of 3.47 (SD =.38) was achieved across all items of the fidelity checklist and across all intervention facilitators (n = 6). There was an apparent trend for intervention fidelity scores to decrease with experience; however, this trend was non‐significant (p >.05) across all domains in this small sample. Conclusion: The NDPS was delivered to an acceptable standard by all Diabetes Prevention Facilitators. Further research is needed to better understand how the intervention's delivery characteristics can be optimized and how they might vary over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1359107X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjhp.12651 |
