MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1843528340 · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-10-s1-a17

Assessing the extent and quality of documentation of fidelity to the implementation strategy: a proposed scoring mechanism

2015· article· en· W1843528340 on OpenAlexaff
Erna Snelgrove‐Clarke, Susan E. Slaughter

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocumentationHealth informaticsFidelityHealth services researchHealth administrationQuality (philosophy)MEDLINEMechanism (biology)Scale (ratio)Cochrane LibraryFamily medicineAlternative medicineMedical educationNursingPublic healthPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementation fidelity is critical to the internal and external validity of a study. Without it, accurate conclusions about an intervention cannot be drawn as unknown factors may have influenced the outcome(s). This scoping review assesses the extent and quality of documentation of fidelity in implementation studies. Articles in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) that included at least one of the 47 Cochrane Review implementation strategies were retrieved yielding 1158 articles in 337 journals. We selected publications from the 3 journals with the largest number of articles: British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Medical Care. We developed an "Implementation Strategy Fidelity Score" based on definitions adapted from Dusenbury (2003) [ 1 ]. Adherence (documenting implementation strategies and extent to which they took place), dose (proportion of people receiving each strategy) and participant responsiveness (extent to which individuals were involved in the development or evaluation of strategies or their receptivity to them) were scored on a 3-point scale: 0=no detail, 1=some detail, and 2=great detail. The number of articles included for each journal and mean scores (standard deviations) across categories were: BMJ: n = 28; adherence = 0.86 (SD = 0.87); dose = 0.57 (SD = 0.86); participant responsiveness = 0.79 (SD = 0.90). JAMA: n = 26: adherence = 0.88 (SD = 0.95); dose = 0.76 (SD = 0.81); participant responsiveness = 0.92 (SD = 0.93). Medical Care: n = 19; adherence = 1.11 (SD = 0.97); dose = 0.95 (SD = 1.0); participant responsiveness = 1.21 (SD = 0.89). Although mean scores for the Medical Care journal were higher in each category, documentation of fidelity to the implementation strategy overall can be improved by adopting standard definitions, and better practices for measurement, documentation and reporting. This scoring mechanism provides insight into the documentation of fidelity. It also provides a structure for defining and documenting fidelity to the implementation strategy and a benchmark from which to measure the quality of documentation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.830
GPT teacher head0.771
Teacher spread0.059 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImplementation ScienceSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207