Feasibility and acceptability of a volunteer peer fidelity assessment model in early psychosis intervention programmes in Ontario: Results from a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Fidelity monitoring can support high-quality service delivery but is resource-intensive to implement. A fidelity assessment model utilizing volunteer assessors was trialled as a low-cost strategy for conducting fidelity assessments. This article reports on the acceptability and feasibility of this model. METHODS: Twenty volunteer assessors were trained to conduct fidelity assessments in nine Early Psychosis Intervention programmes across Ontario, Canada. Assessments were conducted using the First-Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale based on a 2-day site visit, during which assessors interviewed staff, clients and families; reviewed charts; observed a team meeting and reviewed programme materials. The model was evaluated based on assessor focus groups, programme interviews, consensus meeting data and time-tracking logs. General inductive analysis was used to code and synthesize qualitative data. Quantitative data were aggregated and summarized. RESULTS: Participant feedback was positive and indicated that use of peer assessors and the in-person site visit added value to the process. The model was perceived to provide valuable information to support internal quality improvement efforts. Assessors reported direct benefits from participating, including networking and learning opportunities. Key challenges were the high time demand on assessors and turnover in the assessor team. CONCLUSIONS: The volunteer peer fidelity model was perceived to be a valuable improvement process by participants, but the high cost and reliance on ongoing volunteerism makes its sustainability uncertain. Next steps may include exploring remote assessment strategies or direct payments, although these strategies risk reducing the acceptability, and therefore uptake, of the assessment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".