Monitoring treatment fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to describe how treatment fidelity is being enhanced and monitored, using a model from the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium. Background. The objective of treatment fidelity is to minimize errors in interpreting research trial outcomes, and to ascribe those outcomes directly to the intervention at hand. Treatment fidelity procedures are included in trials of complex interventions to account for inferences made from study outcomes. Monitoring treatment fidelity can help improve study design, maximize reliability of results, increase statistical power, determine whether theory-based interventions are responsible for observed changes, and inform the research dissemination process. Methods. Treatment fidelity recommendations from the Behavior Change Consortium were applied to the SPHERE study (Secondary Prevention of Heart DiseasE in GeneRal PracticE), a randomized controlled trial of a complex intervention. Procedures to enhance and monitor intervention implementation included standardizing training sessions, observing intervention consultations, structuring patient recall systems, and using written practice and patient care plans. The research nurse plays an important role in monitoring intervention implementation. Findings. Several methods of applying treatment fidelity procedures to monitoring interventions are possible. The procedure used may be determined by availability of appropriate personnel, fiscal constraints, or time limits. Complex interventions are not straightforward and necessitate a monitoring process at trial stage. Conclusion. The Behavior Change Consortium’s model of treatment fidelity is useful for structuring a system to monitor the implementation of a complex intervention, and helps to increase the reliability and validity of evaluation findings.

Presbyterians and science in the north of Ireland before 1874

In his presidential address to the Belfast meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1874, John Tyndall launched what David Livingstone has called a ‘frontal assault on teleology and Christian theism’. Using Tyndall's intervention as a starting point, this paper seeks to understand the attitudes of Presbyterians in the north of Ireland to science in the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century. The first section outlines some background, including the attitude of Presbyterians to science in the eighteenth century, the development of educational facilities in Ireland for the training of Presbyterian ministers, and the specific cultural and political circumstances in Ireland that influenced Presbyterian responses to science more generally. The next two sections examine two specific applications by Irish Presbyterians of the term ‘science’: first, the emergence of a distinctive Presbyterian theology of nature and the application of inductive scientific methodology to the study of theology, and second, the Presbyterian conviction that mind had ascendancy over matter which underpinned their commitment to the development of a science of the mind. The final two sections examine, in turn, the relationship between science and an eschatological reading of the signs of the times, and attitudes to Darwinian evolution in the fifteen years between the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 and Tyndall's speech in 1874.

Identifying strategies to maximise recruitment and retention of practices and patients in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of an intervention to optimise secondary prevention for coronary heart disease in primary care.

Background Recruitment and retention of patients and healthcare providers in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is important in order to determine the effectiveness of interventions. However, failure to achieve recruitment targets is common and reasons why a particular recruitment strategy works for one study and not another remain unclear. We sought to describe a strategy used in a multicentre RCT in primary care, to report researchers’ and participants’ experiences of its implementation and to inform future strategies to maximise recruitment and retention. Methods In total 48 general practices and 903 patients were recruited from three different areas of Ireland to a RCT of an intervention designed to optimise secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. The recruitment process involved telephoning practices, posting information, visiting practices, identifying potential participants, posting invitations and obtaining consent. Retention involved patients attending reviews and responding to questionnaires and practices facilitating data collection. Results We achieved high retention rates for practices (100%) and for patients (85%) over an 18-month intervention period. Pilot work, knowledge of the setting, awareness of change in staff and organisation amongst participant sites, rapid responses to queries and acknowledgement of practitioners’ contributions were identified as being important. Minor variations in protocol and research support helped to meet varied, complex and changing individual needs of practitioners and patients and encouraged retention in the trial. A collaborative relationship between researcher and practice staff which required time to develop was perceived as vital for both recruitment and retention. Conclusions Recruiting and retaining the numbers of practices and patients estimated as required to provide findings with adequate power contributes to increased confidence in the validity and generalisability of RCT results. A continuous dynamic process of monitoring progress within trials and tailoring strategies to particular circumstances, whilst not compromising trial protocols, should allow maximal recruitment and retention.