Bringing Evidence-Based Interventions to the Field: The Fidelity Challenge

Fidelity monitoring across the seven studies in the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART)

BACKGROUND

This paper describes fidelity monitoring (treatment differentiation, training, delivery, receipt and enactment) across the seven National Institutes of Health-supported Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) studies. The objectives of the study were to describe approaches to monitoring fidelity including treatment differentiation (lack of crossover), provider training, provider delivery of treatment, patient receipt of treatment, and patient enactment (behavior) and provide examples of application of these principles.

METHODS

Conducted between 2010 and 2014 and collectively enrolling over 9500 inpatient cigarette smokers, the CHART studies tested different smoking cessation interventions (counseling, medications, and follow-up calls) shown to be efficacious in Cochrane Collaborative Reviews. The CHART studies compared their unique treatment arm(s) to usual care, used common core measures at baseline and 6-month follow-up, but varied in their approaches to monitoring the fidelity with which the interventions were implemented.

RESULTS

Treatment differentiation strategies included the use of a quasi-experimental design and monitoring of both the intervention and control group. Almost all of the studies had extensive training for personnel and used a checklist to monitor the intervention components, but the items on these checklists varied widely and were based on unique aspects of the interventions, US Public Health Service and Joint Commission smoking cessation standards, or counselor rapport. Delivery of medications ranged from 31 to 100 % across the studies, with higher levels from studies that gave away free medications and lower levels from studies that sought to obtain prescriptions for the patient in real world systems. Treatment delivery was highest among those studies that used automated (interactive voice response and website) systems, but this did not automatically translate into treatment receipt and enactment. Some studies measured treatment enactment in two ways (e.g., counselor or automated system report versus patient report) showing concurrence or discordance between the two measures.

CONCLUSION

While fidelity monitoring can be challenging especially in dissemination trials, the seven CHART studies used a variety of methods to enhance fidelity with consideration for feasibility and sustainability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dissemination of Tobacco Tactics for hospitalized smokers. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01309217.Smoking cessation in hospitalized smokers. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01289275.Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01305928.Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01277250.Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01363245.Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge interventions for hospitalized smokers. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01177176.Health and economic effects from linking bedside and outpatient tobacco cessation services for hospitalized smokers in two large hospitals. Clinical Trials Registration No. NCT01236079.

Association of Cigarette Prices with the Prevalence of Smoking in Korean University Students: Analysis of Effects of the Tobacco Control Policy

BACKGROUND

Increased pricing of cigarettes might be one of the most effective approaches for reducing the prevalence of smoking. This study aimed to investigate the effects of increasing cigarette prices through taxation by a tobacco intervention policy on the changes in smoking prevalence in Korean university students.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The participants in this study were 23,047 healthy university students aged 18-29 years from a health examination in 2011-2015. We investigated the adjusted prevalence of daily and occasional smoking before and after increasing cigarette prices through taxation.

RESULTS

The prevalence of occasional smoking was significantly decreased in 2015 from 2014 in both male (from 10.7% in 2014 to 5.4%) and female (from 3.6% to 1.1%) students, but the prevalence of daily smoking did not decrease significantly. The frequency of individuals who had attempted smoking cessation during the past year was significantly higher among occasional smokers in male students (90.2%) compared with daily smokers (64.9%). For female students, there were no differences in experience of smoking cessation, willingness for smoking cessation, or E-cigarette experience between daily and occasional smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that a policy of increasing cigarette prices through taxation is associated with decreases in the prevalence of occasional smokers, who have relatively lower nicotine dependence compared with individuals who smoke daily. The results of our study suggest that social support and direct intervention for smoking cessation at the community level are needed for university students alongside the pricing policy.

Implementation lessons: the importance of assessing organizational "fit" and external factors when implementing evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs

In recent years, the demand for evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs has increased, but practitioners often struggle to replicate and implement them as designed in real-world community settings. The purpose of this article is to describe the barriers and facilitators encountered during pilot year attempts to implement an evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention program within three types of organizations: (1) small community-based organizations; (2) a school-based organization; and (3) a large decentralized city-sponsored summer youth program. We frame our discussion of these experiences within the context of a systemic, multilevel framework for implementation consisting of (1) core implementation components; (2) organizational components; and (3) external factors. This article explores the organizational and external implementation factors we experienced during the implementation process, describes our lessons learned throughout this process, and offers strategies for other practitioners to proactively address these factors from the start of program planning. These findings may provide useful insight for other organizations looking to implement multi-session, group-level interventions with fidelity.