↓ Skip to main content

What is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
What is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping review
Published in
Implementation Science, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0320-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan E. Slaughter, Jennifer N. Hill, Erna Snelgrove-Clarke

Abstract

Implementation fidelity is critical to the internal and external validity of implementation research. Much of what is written about implementation fidelity addresses fidelity of evidence-informed interventions rather than fidelity of implementation strategies. The documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies requires attention. Therefore, in this scoping review, we identify the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity of implementation strategies that were used to implement evidence-informed interventions. A six-stage methodological framework for scoping studies guided our work. Studies were identified from the outputs of the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) review group within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. EPOC's primary focus, implementation strategies influencing provider behavior change, optimized our ability to identify articles for inclusion. We organized the retrieved articles from the systematic reviews by journal and selected the three journals with the largest number of retrieved articles. Using a data extraction tool, we organized retrieved article data from these three journals. In addition, we summarized implementation strategies using the EPOC categories. Data extraction pertaining to the quality of reporting the fidelity of implementation strategies was facilitated with an "Implementation Strategy Fidelity Checklist" based on definitions adapted from Dusenbury et al. We conducted inter-rater reliability checks for all of the independently scored articles. Using linear regression, we assessed the fidelity scores in relation to the publication year. Seventy-two implementation articles were included in the final analysis. Researchers reported neither fidelity definitions nor conceptual frameworks for fidelity in any articles. The most frequently employed implementation strategies included distribution of education materials (n = 35), audit and feedback (n = 32), and educational meetings (n = 25). Fidelity of implementation strategies was documented in 51 (71 %) articles. Inter-rater reliability coefficients of the independent reviews for each component of fidelity were as follows: adherence = 0.85, dose = 0.89, and participant responsiveness = 0.96. The mean fidelity score was 2.6 (SD = 2.25). We noted a statistically significant decline in fidelity scores over time. In addition to identifying the under-reporting of fidelity of implementation strategies in the health literature, we developed and tested a simple checklist to assess the reporting of fidelity of implementation strategies. More research is indicated to assess the definitions and scoring schema of this checklist. Careful reporting of details about fidelity of implementation strategies will make an important contribution to implementation science.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 172 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 16%
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Professor 8 5%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 32 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 25%
Social Sciences 25 14%
Psychology 21 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 45 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 08 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,319,513
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#455
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,964
of 279,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#13
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 279,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.