Measurement and assessment of fidelity and competence in nonspecialist-delivered, evidence-based behavioral and mental health interventions: A systematic review.

SSM - Population Health Pub Date : 2022-10-04 eCollection Date: 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101249
Laura Bond, Erik Simmons, Erika L Sabbath
{"title":"Measurement and assessment of fidelity and competence in nonspecialist-delivered, evidence-based behavioral and mental health interventions: A systematic review.","authors":"Laura Bond,&nbsp;Erik Simmons,&nbsp;Erika L Sabbath","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nonspecialists have increasingly been used to deliver evidence-based, mental health and behavioral interventions in lower resource settings where there is a dearth of specialized providers and a corresponding gap in service delivery. Recent literature acknowledges that nonspecialist-delivered interventions are shown to be effective. However, few studies report on the fidelity (the degree to which an intervention was implemented as intended) and/or competence (general skills of nonspecialists), key concepts that measure quality of evidence-based intervention delivery. This study seeks to understand how both fidelity and competence have been assessed in nonspecialist-delivered, evidence-based interventions with an intended social or psychological behavior-change outcome. Our search results originally yielded 2317 studies, and ultimately, 16 were included in our final analysis. Generally, results from a narrative synthesis indicated that tools used in the studies demonstrated sufficient inter-rater reliability and intra-class correlation components. Included studies used and described a range of fidelity and competence tools. However, the ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors tool was the most commonly used tool that measures competence of nonspecialists, and has been adapted to several other settings. The roles of supervisors in mentoring, monitoring, and supervising nonspecialists emerged as a key ingredient for ensuring fidelity. Most studies assessing fidelity were limited by small sample sizes due to low numbers of nonspecialists implementing interventions, however, more advanced statistical methods may not be needed and may actually impede community-based organizations from assessing fidelity data. Our results suggest interventions can share resources, tools, and compare findings regardless with proper supervision. While the two terms \"fidelity\" and \"competence\" are often used interchangeably, their differences are noteworthy. Ultimately, both competency and fidelity are critical for delivering evidence-based interventions, and nonspecialists are most effective when they can be evaluated and mentored on both throughout the course of the intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":506314,"journal":{"name":"SSM - Population Health","volume":" ","pages":"101249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/32/fb/main.PMC9563630.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM - Population Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Nonspecialists have increasingly been used to deliver evidence-based, mental health and behavioral interventions in lower resource settings where there is a dearth of specialized providers and a corresponding gap in service delivery. Recent literature acknowledges that nonspecialist-delivered interventions are shown to be effective. However, few studies report on the fidelity (the degree to which an intervention was implemented as intended) and/or competence (general skills of nonspecialists), key concepts that measure quality of evidence-based intervention delivery. This study seeks to understand how both fidelity and competence have been assessed in nonspecialist-delivered, evidence-based interventions with an intended social or psychological behavior-change outcome. Our search results originally yielded 2317 studies, and ultimately, 16 were included in our final analysis. Generally, results from a narrative synthesis indicated that tools used in the studies demonstrated sufficient inter-rater reliability and intra-class correlation components. Included studies used and described a range of fidelity and competence tools. However, the ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors tool was the most commonly used tool that measures competence of nonspecialists, and has been adapted to several other settings. The roles of supervisors in mentoring, monitoring, and supervising nonspecialists emerged as a key ingredient for ensuring fidelity. Most studies assessing fidelity were limited by small sample sizes due to low numbers of nonspecialists implementing interventions, however, more advanced statistical methods may not be needed and may actually impede community-based organizations from assessing fidelity data. Our results suggest interventions can share resources, tools, and compare findings regardless with proper supervision. While the two terms "fidelity" and "competence" are often used interchangeably, their differences are noteworthy. Ultimately, both competency and fidelity are critical for delivering evidence-based interventions, and nonspecialists are most effective when they can be evaluated and mentored on both throughout the course of the intervention.

Abstract Image

测量和评估非专业人员提供的、基于证据的行为和心理健康干预的忠实度和能力:一项系统综述。
非专业人员越来越多地被用于在资源匮乏的环境中提供以证据为基础的心理健康和行为干预措施,这些环境缺乏专业提供者,在提供服务方面存在相应的差距。最近的文献承认,非专业人员提供的干预措施是有效的。然而,很少有研究报告保真度(干预措施按预期实施的程度)和/或能力(非专业人员的一般技能),这是衡量循证干预交付质量的关键概念。本研究旨在了解保真度和能力是如何在非专业人员提供的、以证据为基础的干预措施中进行评估的,这些干预措施具有预期的社会或心理行为改变结果。我们的搜索结果最初产生了2317项研究,最终,16项纳入了我们的最终分析。一般来说,叙述性综合的结果表明,研究中使用的工具显示出足够的等级间可靠性和等级内相关性成分。纳入的研究使用并描述了一系列保真度和能力工具。然而,共同治疗因素的增强评估工具是最常用的工具,用于测量非专业人员的能力,并已适应其他几种情况。主管在指导、监督和监督非专业人员方面的角色成为确保忠诚的关键因素。由于实施干预措施的非专业人员数量较少,大多数评估保真度的研究受限于样本量小,然而,可能不需要更先进的统计方法,并且可能实际上阻碍社区组织评估保真度数据。我们的研究结果表明,干预措施可以共享资源、工具和比较结果,而不需要适当的监督。虽然“忠诚”和“能力”这两个术语经常互换使用,但它们的区别是值得注意的。最终,能力和忠诚对于提供基于证据的干预至关重要,非专业人员在整个干预过程中能够在这两方面得到评估和指导时是最有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信