Fidelity Protocol Development for a Telehealth Type 1 Diabetes Occupation-Based Coaching Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Preserving fidelity ascertains that the intervention is delivered as intended in occupational therapy (OT) contexts. The process of conceptualizing and developing fidelity standards, however, is seldom documented in the existing literature. Purpose. The purpose of this methodological description paper was to (a) describe the process of generating a comprehensive fidelity plan based on the National Institutes of Health Behavioral Change Consortium's five-domain fidelity framework and (b) evaluate the development process and utility of the end product, the Occupation-Based Coaching (OBC) Fidelity Protocol. Key Issues. There is no known research that documents the process of developing fidelity standards and tools to support the OBC intervention. Implications. The OBC Fidelity Protocol proposes an example of how a comprehensive fidelity plan and tools can be developed from a well-established scientific framework. This can also inform OT practitioners and researchers to deliver OBC sessions with consistency across clients, providers, and interventions/studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.360 | 0.368 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".