Qualitative research to inform hypothesis testing for fidelity-based sub-group analysis in clinical trials: lessons learnt from the process evaluation of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention.


Journal

Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Apr 2020
Historique:
received: 03 06 2019
accepted: 24 03 2020
entrez: 23 4 2020
pubmed: 23 4 2020
medline: 20 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Ensuring fidelity to complex interventions is a challenge when conducting pragmatic randomised controlled trials. We explore fidelity through a qualitative process evaluation, which was conducted alongside a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm cohort randomised controlled trial: the REFORM (Reducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention) trial. The paper aims, through a qualitative process evaluation, to explore some of the factors that may have affected the delivery of the REFORM intervention and highlight how project-specific fidelity can be assessed using a truly mixed-methods approach when informed by qualitative insights. Semi-structured qualitative interviews carried out as part of a process evaluation. Interviews were analysed thematically. Seven NHS trusts in the UK and a University podiatry school in Ireland. Interviews were undertaken face-to-face or over the telephone. Twenty-one REFORM trial participants and 14 podiatrists who delivered the REFORM intervention. Factors affecting fidelity included: how similar the intervention was to routine practice; the challenges of delivering a multifaceted intervention to a heterogeneous older population; and practical issues with delivery such as time and training. Trial participants' views of the intervention, whether falls prevention is a personal priority, their experience of being part of a trial and individual factors such as medical conditions may also have affected intervention fidelity. Our process evaluation highlighted factors that were perceived to have affected the fidelity of the REFORM intervention and in doing so demonstrates the importance of considering fidelity when designing and evaluating pragmatic trials. We propose a number of recommendations of how important project-specific insights from qualitative work can be incorporated into the design of fidelity measurement of future trials, which build on existing conceptual fidelity frameworks. In particular, we encourage adopting a mixed-methods approach whereby qualitative insights can be used to suggest ways to enhance quantitative data collection facilitating integration through hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing and seeking explanation for trial findings. This will provide a framework of enabling measures of fidelity to be incorporated into the understanding of trial results which has been relatively neglected by existing literature. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN68240461. Registered on 01/07/2011.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Ensuring fidelity to complex interventions is a challenge when conducting pragmatic randomised controlled trials. We explore fidelity through a qualitative process evaluation, which was conducted alongside a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm cohort randomised controlled trial: the REFORM (Reducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention) trial. The paper aims, through a qualitative process evaluation, to explore some of the factors that may have affected the delivery of the REFORM intervention and highlight how project-specific fidelity can be assessed using a truly mixed-methods approach when informed by qualitative insights.
DESIGN METHODS
Semi-structured qualitative interviews carried out as part of a process evaluation. Interviews were analysed thematically.
SETTING METHODS
Seven NHS trusts in the UK and a University podiatry school in Ireland. Interviews were undertaken face-to-face or over the telephone.
PARTICIPANTS METHODS
Twenty-one REFORM trial participants and 14 podiatrists who delivered the REFORM intervention.
RESULTS RESULTS
Factors affecting fidelity included: how similar the intervention was to routine practice; the challenges of delivering a multifaceted intervention to a heterogeneous older population; and practical issues with delivery such as time and training. Trial participants' views of the intervention, whether falls prevention is a personal priority, their experience of being part of a trial and individual factors such as medical conditions may also have affected intervention fidelity.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our process evaluation highlighted factors that were perceived to have affected the fidelity of the REFORM intervention and in doing so demonstrates the importance of considering fidelity when designing and evaluating pragmatic trials. We propose a number of recommendations of how important project-specific insights from qualitative work can be incorporated into the design of fidelity measurement of future trials, which build on existing conceptual fidelity frameworks. In particular, we encourage adopting a mixed-methods approach whereby qualitative insights can be used to suggest ways to enhance quantitative data collection facilitating integration through hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing and seeking explanation for trial findings. This will provide a framework of enabling measures of fidelity to be incorporated into the understanding of trial results which has been relatively neglected by existing literature.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN68240461. Registered on 01/07/2011.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32317024
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04274-6
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04274-6
pmc: PMC7171824
doi:

Types de publication

Evaluation Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

348

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 09/77/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 09/77/01

Références

Clin Psychol Rev. 1998 Jan;18(1):23-45
pubmed: 9455622
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 03;5:67
pubmed: 20815872
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 4;375(5):454-63
pubmed: 27518663
Health Educ Res. 2003 Apr;18(2):237-56
pubmed: 12729182
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Implement Sci. 2007 Nov 30;2:40
pubmed: 18053122
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Apr;21(24):1-198
pubmed: 28621259
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 20;12(1):e0168712
pubmed: 28107372
BMJ. 2015 Nov 04;351:h5651
pubmed: 26537915
Health Psychol. 2004 Sep;23(5):443-51
pubmed: 15367063

Auteurs

Arabella Scantlebury (A)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Sarah Cockayne (S)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Caroline Fairhurst (C)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Sara Rodgers (S)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

David Torgerson (D)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Catherine Hewitt (C)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Joy Adamson (J)

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. joy.adamson@york.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH