↓ Skip to main content

Implementation fidelity of a self-management course for epilepsy: method and assessment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation fidelity of a self-management course for epilepsy: method and assessment
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0373-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. Wojewodka, S. Hurley, S. J. C. Taylor, A. J. Noble, L. Ridsdale, L. H. Goldstein

Abstract

Complex interventions such as self-management courses are difficult to evaluate due to the many interacting components. The way complex interventions are delivered can influence the effect they have for patients, and can impact the interpretation of outcomes of clinical trials. Implementation fidelity evaluates whether complex interventions are delivered according to protocol. Such assessments have been used for one-to-one psychological interventions; however, the science is still developing for group interventions. We developed and tested an instrument to measure implementation fidelity of a two-day self-management course for people with epilepsy, SMILE(UK). Using audio recordings, we looked at adherence and competence of course facilitators. Adherence was assessed by checklists. Competence was measured by scoring group interaction, an overall impression score and facilitator "didacticism". To measure "didacticism", we developed a novel way to calculate facilitator speech using computer software. Using this new instrument, implementation fidelity of SMILE(UK) was assessed on three modules of the course, for 28% of all courses delivered. Using the instrument for adherence, scores from two independent raters showed substantial agreement with weighted Kappa of 0.67 and high percent agreement of 81.2%. For didacticism, the results from both raters were highly correlated with an intraclass coefficient of 0.97 (p < 0.0001). We found that the courses were delivered with a good level of adherence (> 50% of scored items received the maximum of 2 points) and high competence. Groups were interactive (mean score: 1.9-2.0 out of 2) and the overall impression was on average assessed as "good". Didacticism varied from 42% to 93% of total module time and was not associated with the other competence scores. The instrument devised to measure implementation fidelity was reproducible and easy to use. The courses for the SMILE(UK) study were delivered with a good level of adherence to protocol while not compromising facilitator competence. ISRCTN57937389 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 22%
Psychology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,905,157
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,691
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,223
of 312,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#27
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.