Transferring successful implementation strategies from research to practice requires approaches for assessing fidelity to the strategy\'s core components. Implementation facilitation (IF) is a strategy involving an interactive process of problem-solving, enabling, and supporting individuals in efforts to implement clinical innovations that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and supportive interpersonal relationships. Because IF is a dynamic strategy involving numerous activities, our objective was to conduct a rigorous consensus development process to identify core activities for monitoring fidelity to IF when applied in clinical settings. We first conducted a scoping literature review to identify the range of activities used when IF has been applied in clinical settings, searching multiple citation databases for English-language articles including \"facilitation\" or other commonly-used terms for the strategy published from 1996-2015. Through multi-stage screening, 135 articles (from 94 studies) were identified for data extraction on IF activities, frequency with which IF activities were identified as \'core\' by study authors, and study outcomes. From the literature review, we identified 32 distinct IF activities and developed definitions/examples for each. Next, we conducted a 3-stage, modified-Delphi expert panel consensus development process to identify core IF activities across three implementation phases (i.e., Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Sustainment). The expert panel identified 8 core activities for the Pre-Implementation Phase, 8 core activities for the Implementation Phase, and 4 core activities for the Sustainment Phase. This work provides an important foundation for developing measures/tools to assess use of core IF activities to ensure the strategy is delivered with fidelity.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate reporting of fidelity to interventions in trials limits the transparency and interpretation of trial findings. Despite this, most trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions lack comprehensive reporting of fidelity. If fidelity is poorly reported, it is unclear which intervention components were tested or implemented within the trial, which also hinders research reproducibility. This protocol describes the development process of a reporting guideline for fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions (ReFiND) in the context of trials.
METHODS: The ReFiND guideline will be developed in six stages. Stage one: a guideline development group has been formed to oversee the guideline methodology. Stage two: a scoping review will be conducted to identify and summarize existing guidance documents on the fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. Stage three: a Delphi study will be conducted to reach consensus on reporting items. Stage four: a consensus meeting will be held to consolidate the reporting items and discuss the wording and structure of the guideline. Stage five: a guidance statement, an elaboration and explanation document, and a reporting checklist will be developed. Stage six: different strategies will be used to disseminate and implement the ReFiND guideline.
CONCLUSIONS: The ReFiND guideline will provide a set of items developed through international consensus to improve the reporting of intervention fidelity in trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. This reporting guideline will enhance transparency and reproducibility in future non-drug, non-surgical intervention research.

BACKGROUND: Psychotic disorders are associated with academic difficulties. Supported Employment Program (SEP) guidelines have become the gold standard to improve occupational functioning in psychotic disorders. More recently, these guidelines have been adapted to education. In Canada, several community organizations and hospital programs offer supported education to young people with psychotic disorders. However, SEP guidelines are not systematically used. The objective of this study was to assess the fidelity of 6 Canadian (Quebec) organizations offering supported education services to young people with psychotic disorders to the SEP guidelines adapted to education.
METHODS: Six sites offering educational services to young people with psychotic disorders were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with one supported education professional and one manager of each site, using the Quality of Supported Education Implementation Scale (QSEDIS). This new scale has been developed from the Quality of Supported Employment Implementation Scale. The QSEDIS assesses the fidelity of the quality of the implementation of supported education programs, using three subscales (Employees, Organization and Services).
RESULTS: Acceptable fidelity scores were observed in the three QSEDIS subscales for all six sites combined. The Services subscale received the highest score of fidelity (4.4/5), followed by the Supported Education Employee (4.1/5) and the Organization (3.7/5).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that supported education services offered to young people with psychotic disorders in the six sites are generally consistent with SEP guidelines adapted to education. Further research is warranted to validate whether acceptable SEP guidelines fidelity according to the QSEDIS translates into educational outcomes.

The sizeable body of evidence indicating that parenting programs have a positive impact on children and families highlights the potential public health benefits of their implementation on a large scale. Despite evidence and global attention, beyond the highly controlled delivery of parenting programs via randomized trials, little is known about program effectiveness or how to explain the poorer results commonly observed when implemented in community settings. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers must work together to identify what is needed to spur adoption and sustainment of evidence-based parenting programs in real-world service systems and how to enhance program effectiveness when delivered via these systems. Collecting, analyzing, and using facilitator fidelity data is an important frontier through which researchers and practitioners can contribute. In this commentary, we outline the value of assessing facilitator fidelity and utilizing the data generated from these assessments; describe gaps in research, knowledge, and practice; and recommend directions for research and practice. In making recommendations, we describe a collaborative process to develop a preliminary guideline-the Fidelity of Implementation in Parenting Programs Guideline or FIPP-to use when reporting on facilitator fidelity. Readers are invited to complete an online survey to provide comments and feedback on the first draft of the guideline.
UNASSIGNED: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00092-5.

OBJECTIVE: Auditory-perceptual measurements of voice are among the most common diagnostic tools used during a voice evaluation and are considered a gold standard for documenting voice disorders. The goal of this pilot study was to examine the fidelity of clinicians in the administration of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) and its published protocol. This investigation aimed to determine how the CAPE-V is being used by clinicians and researchers and the extent to which users deviate from the published procedure.
METHODS: Survey METHODS: Data were collected by surveying a group (N = l7) of speech-language pathologists who regularly evaluate and treat patients with voice disorders. Survey results revealed that few of the sampled speech-language pathologists follow exactly the standardized instructions for administering the CAPE-V. Considerable variability in CAPE-V administration, including tasks and stimuli examined, was found across respondents.
CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory project may be used to develop a larger national survey study investigating fidelity to the CAPE-V and to motivate recommendations for possible revisions to the instrument and its protocol for administration.

Assessment and feedback is a common implementation strategy to improve healthcare provider fidelity to clinical guidelines. For immunization guidelines, fidelity is often measured with doses administered during eligible visits. Adding a patient refusal measure captures provider fidelity more completely (i.e., all instances of a provider recommending a vaccine, resulting in vaccination or refusal) and enables providers to track patient vaccine hesitancy patterns. However, many electronic health record (EHR) systems have no structured field to document multiple instances of refusals for specific vaccines, and existing billing codes for refusal are not vaccine specific. This study assessed the feasibility of a novel method for refusal documentation used in a study focused on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
An observational, descriptive-comparative, mixed-methods study design was used to conduct secondary data analysis from an implementation-effectiveness trial. The parent trial compared coach-based versus web-based practice facilitation, including assessment and feedback, to increase HPV vaccination in 21 community-based private pediatric practices. Providers were instructed to document initial HPV vaccine refusals in the EHR\'s immunization forms and subsequent refusals using dummy procedure codes, for use in assessment and feedback reports. This analysis examined adoption and maintenance of the refusal documentation method during eligible well visits, identified barriers and facilitators to documentation and described demographic patterns in patient refusals.
Seven practices adopted the refusal documentation method. Among adopter practices, documented refusals started at 2.4% of eligible well visits at baseline, increased to 14.2% at the start of implementation, peaked at 24.0%, then declined to 18.8%. Barriers to refusal documentation included low prioritization, workflow integration and complication of the billing process. Facilitators included high motivation, documentation instructions and coach support. Among adopter practices, odds of refusing HPV vaccine were 25% higher for patients aged 15-17 years versus 11-12 years, and 18% lower for males versus females.
We demonstrated the value of patient refusal documentation for measuring HPV vaccination guideline fidelity and ways that it can be improved in future research. Creation of vaccine-specific refusal billing codes or EHR adaptations to enable documenting multiple instances of specific vaccine refusals would facilitate consistent refusal documentation. Trial Registration NCT03399396 Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 1/16/2018.

BACKGROUND: Fidelity in complex behavioural interventions is underexplored and few comprehensive or detailed fidelity studies report on specific procedures for monitoring fidelity. Using Bellg\'s popular Treatment Fidelity model, this paper aims to increase understanding of how to practically and comprehensively assess fidelity in complex, group-level, interventions.
UNASSIGNED: Drawing on our experience using a mixed methods approach to assess fidelity in the INFORM study (Improving Nursing home care through Feedback On perfoRMance data-INFORM), we report on challenges and adaptations experienced with our fidelity assessment approach and lessons learned. Six fidelity assessment challenges were identified: (1) the need to develop succinct tools to measure fidelity given tools tend to be intervention specific, (2) determining which components of fidelity (delivery, receipt, enactment) to emphasize, (3) unit of analysis considerations in group-level interventions, (4) missing data problems, (5) how to respond to and treat fidelity \'failures\' and \'deviations\' and lack of an overall fidelity assessment scheme, and (6) ensuring fidelity assessment doesn\'t threaten internal validity.
UNASSIGNED: Six guidelines, primarily applicable to group-level studies of complex interventions, are described to help address conceptual, methodological, and practical challenges with fidelity assessment in pragmatic trials. The current study offers guidance to researchers regarding key practical, methodological, and conceptual challenges associated with assessing fidelity in pragmatic trials. Greater attention to fidelity assessment and publication of fidelity results through detailed studies such as this one is critical for improving the quality of fidelity studies and, ultimately, the utility of published trials.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02695836. Registered on February 24, 2016.

Teams delivering crisis resolution services for people with dementia and their carers provide short-term interventions to prevent admission to acute care settings. There is great variation in these services across the UK. This article reports on a consensus process undertaken to devise a Best Practice Model and evaluation Tool for use with teams managing crisis in dementia.
The Best Practice Model and Tool were developed over a three stage process: (i) Evidence gathering and generation of candidate standards (systematic review and scoping survey, interviews and focus groups); (ii) Prioritisation and selection of standards (consultation groups, a consensus conference and modified Delphi process); (iii) Refining and operationalising standards (consultation group and field-testing).
One hundred sixty-five candidate standards arose from the evidence gathering stage; were refined and reduced to 90 through a consultation group exercise; and then reduced to 50 during the consensus conference and weighted using a modified Delphi process. Standards were then operationalised through a clinical consultation group and field-tested with 11 crisis teams and 5 non-crisis teams. Scores ranged from 48 to 92/100. The median score for the crisis teams was 74.5 (range 67-92), and the median score for non-crisis teams was 60 (range 48-72).
With further psychometric testing, this Best Practice Model and Tool will be ideal for the planning, improvement and national benchmarking of teams managing dementia crises in the future.

Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n=182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.

Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n = 182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.