Establishing consensus on domains and items for Reporting intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: the ReFiND Delphi study
Rattachement africain : au, us, gb, Afrique du Sud, br. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Objectives To develop consensus on core domains and items to inform a reporting guideline for intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND). Design International, online three-round Delphi process. Methods We invited researchers with expertise in intervention fidelity, non-drug, non-surgical trials, trial reporting, and process evaluation methods to take part in a three-round Delphi study. They rated the importance of 7 intervention fidelity domains and 79 items using a 9-point scale (1 to 3= ‘not important’, 4 to 6= ‘important but not essential’, 7 to 9= ‘very important’). A comment box was provided along with each domain and item for panellists to provide the rationale for their ratings. Consensus was defined as more than 70% of panellists rating 1-3 (exclusion) or 7-9 (inclusion) after two voting rounds. A summary of ratings and panellists’ rationale from Rounds One and Two were provided to panellists in Round Two and Three, respectively. We conducted a thematic analysis to synthesise qualitative data. Results Sixty-one panellists completed Round One, 55 completed Round Two and 56 completed Round Three. Panellists had diverse backgrounds and were from 21 countries, including six low- and middle-income countries. After three rounds, five domains (Intervention Design, Intervention Fidelity Measurement Methods, Provider Training, Intervention Delivery by Providers, Intervention Receipt by Participants) and 20 items reached consensus for inclusion in the reporting guideline. Panellists’ rationale for their ratings was based on how specifically each domain and item related to intervention fidelity, how feasible it would be to implement in practice, and how broadly it could be applied across different contexts. Conclusions Using systematic methods, this study reached consensus on a core set of domains and items for inclusion in ReFiND. This core set provides a foundation for consistent and transparent reporting of intervention fidelity and helps researchers and clinicians better interpret and replicate interventions tested in non-drug, non-surgical trials. Key messages What is already known on this topic Intervention fidelity is poorly reported across non-drug, non-surgical trials There is a lack of standardisation and conflicting information in intervention fidelity domains and reporting recommendations, making adequate reporting difficult What this study adds Using systematic methods, this study reached consensus on five domains and 20 items considered essential for fidelity reporting in non-drug, non-surgical trials How this study might affect research, practice or policy The findings of this study will inform a reporting guideline on intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND), supporting greater transparency, replication, and reproducibility of such interventions.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Establishing consensus on domains and items for Reporting intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: the ReFiND Delphi study
- Date Crossref
- 15/09/2026
- Éditeur
- openRxiv
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Monash University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Boston University Department of Health Policy and Health Services Research pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Sheffield Division of Population Health pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
South African Medical Research Council Afrique du Sud (code pays fourni par la source)Institution
-
University of Cape Town University of Cape Town, Afrique du Sud (code pays fourni par la source)Université ou école supérieure
-
Curtin University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Utah Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of Warwick Warwick Clinical Trials Unit pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
The University of Queensland Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS) pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Metro North Hospital and Health Service pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of Exeter Department of Public Health and Sports Science pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Monash University, Department of Health Policy and Health Services Research — Boston University et Division of Population Health — University of Sheffield, avec 9 autres affiliations. Pays d’affiliation : Afrique du Sud.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.