Delivery fidelity of the REACT (REtirement in ACTion) physical activity and behaviour maintenance intervention for community dwelling older people with mobility limitations.
Behaviour change
Behaviour change techniques
Behavioural intervention
Older adults
Physical activity
Process evaluation
Randomised controlled trial
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 06 2022
03 06 2022
Historique:
received:
03
11
2021
accepted:
20
05
2022
entrez:
6
6
2022
pubmed:
7
6
2022
medline:
9
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fidelity assessment of behaviour change interventions is vital to understanding trial outcomes. This study assesses the delivery fidelity of behaviour change techniques used in the Retirement in ACTion (REACT) randomised controlled trial. REACT is a community-based physical activity (PA) and behaviour maintenance intervention to prevent decline of physical functioning in older adults (≥ 65 years) at high risk of mobility-related disability in the UK. The delivery fidelity of intervention behaviour change techniques and delivery processes were assessed using multi-observer coding of purposively sampled in-vivo audio recordings (n = 25) of health behaviour maintenance sessions over 12-months. Delivery fidelity was scored using a modified Dreyfus scale (scores 0-5) to assess competence and completeness of delivery for each technique and delivery process. "Competent delivery" was defined as a score of 3 points or more for each item. Examples of competent intervention delivery were identified to inform recommendations for future programme delivery and training. The mean intervention fidelity score was 2.5 (SD 0.45) with delivery fidelity varying between techniques/processes and intervention groups. Person-centred delivery, Facilitating Enjoyment and Promoting Autonomy were delivered competently (scoring 3.0 or more). There was scope for improvement (score 2.0-2.9) in Monitoring Progress (Acknowledging and Reviewing), Self-Monitoring, Monitoring Progress (Eliciting Benefits of Physical Activity), Goal Setting and Action Planning, Modelling, Supporting Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity and Supporting Relatedness. Managing Setbacks and Problem Solving was delivered with low fidelity. Numerous examples of both good and sub-optimal practice were identified. This study highlights successes and improvements needed to enhance delivery fidelity in future implementation of the behavioural maintenance programme of the REACT intervention. Future training of REACT session leaders and assessment of delivery fidelity needs to focus on the delivery of Goal setting and Action Planning, Modelling, Supporting Relatedness, Supporting Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity, and Managing Setbacks/ Problem Solving.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fidelity assessment of behaviour change interventions is vital to understanding trial outcomes. This study assesses the delivery fidelity of behaviour change techniques used in the Retirement in ACTion (REACT) randomised controlled trial. REACT is a community-based physical activity (PA) and behaviour maintenance intervention to prevent decline of physical functioning in older adults (≥ 65 years) at high risk of mobility-related disability in the UK.
METHODS
The delivery fidelity of intervention behaviour change techniques and delivery processes were assessed using multi-observer coding of purposively sampled in-vivo audio recordings (n = 25) of health behaviour maintenance sessions over 12-months. Delivery fidelity was scored using a modified Dreyfus scale (scores 0-5) to assess competence and completeness of delivery for each technique and delivery process. "Competent delivery" was defined as a score of 3 points or more for each item. Examples of competent intervention delivery were identified to inform recommendations for future programme delivery and training.
RESULTS
The mean intervention fidelity score was 2.5 (SD 0.45) with delivery fidelity varying between techniques/processes and intervention groups. Person-centred delivery, Facilitating Enjoyment and Promoting Autonomy were delivered competently (scoring 3.0 or more). There was scope for improvement (score 2.0-2.9) in Monitoring Progress (Acknowledging and Reviewing), Self-Monitoring, Monitoring Progress (Eliciting Benefits of Physical Activity), Goal Setting and Action Planning, Modelling, Supporting Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity and Supporting Relatedness. Managing Setbacks and Problem Solving was delivered with low fidelity. Numerous examples of both good and sub-optimal practice were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
This study highlights successes and improvements needed to enhance delivery fidelity in future implementation of the behavioural maintenance programme of the REACT intervention. Future training of REACT session leaders and assessment of delivery fidelity needs to focus on the delivery of Goal setting and Action Planning, Modelling, Supporting Relatedness, Supporting Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity, and Managing Setbacks/ Problem Solving.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35658857
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13496-z
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13496-z
pmc: PMC9166457
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1112Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P021220/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987 Dec;53(6):1024-37
pubmed: 3320334
Trials. 2018 Apr 17;19(1):228
pubmed: 29665854
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 30;(9):CD010392
pubmed: 24085592
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2021 Feb;13(1):239-260
pubmed: 33075200
Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):327-50
pubmed: 18322790
Health Psychol. 2018 Jul;37(7):627-637
pubmed: 29708387
BMC Public Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):765
pubmed: 28969669
J Public Health Dent. 2011 Winter;71(s1):S52-S63
pubmed: 21499543
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 2;9(8):e026039
pubmed: 31377692
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Oct;73(5):852-60
pubmed: 16287385
Res Nurs Health. 2010 Apr;33(2):164-73
pubmed: 20198637
BMJ. 2012 Mar 26;344:e1389
pubmed: 22451477
Health Psychol. 2004 Sep;23(5):443-51
pubmed: 15367063
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Trials. 2021 May 29;22(1):372
pubmed: 34051830
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;(1):CD003180
pubmed: 15674903
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 10;12(7):e0180902
pubmed: 28700754
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
F1000Res. 2018 Jun 18;7:752
pubmed: 30364075
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Jun;158:14-23
pubmed: 27104307
Health Educ Behav. 2004 Apr;31(2):143-64
pubmed: 15090118
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 Mar 12;5:41
pubmed: 30923626
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Nov;192:125-133
pubmed: 28965003
Public Health. 2021 Aug;197:11-18
pubmed: 34271270
BMC Public Health. 2011 Feb 18;11:119
pubmed: 21333011
Ann Behav Med. 2014 Oct;48(2):225-34
pubmed: 24648017
Health Psychol Rev. 2019 Jun 13;:1-21
pubmed: 31190619