Fidelity assessment of nurse-led non-pharmacological package of care for knee pain in the package development phase of a feasibility randomised controlled trial based in secondary care: a mixed methods study

Polykarpos Angelos Nomikos, Michelle Hall, Amy Fuller, Bonnie Millar, Reuben Ogollah, Ana Valdes, Michael Doherty, David A Walsh, Roshan das Nair, A Abhishek, Polykarpos Angelos Nomikos, Michelle Hall, Amy Fuller, Bonnie Millar, Reuben Ogollah, Ana Valdes, Michael Doherty, David A Walsh, Roshan das Nair, A Abhishek

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate fidelity of delivery of a nurse-led non-pharmacological complex intervention for knee pain.

Setting: Secondary care. Single-centre study.

Study design: Mixed methods study.

Participants: Eighteen adults with chronic knee pain.

Inclusion criteria: Age >40 years, knee pain present for longer than 3 months, knee pain for most days of the previous month, at least moderate pain in two of the five domains of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain scale.

Interventions: Nurse-led non-pharmacological intervention comprising assessment, education, exercise, use of hot/cold treatments, footwear modification, walking aids and weight-loss advice (if required).

Outcomes: Primary: fidelity of delivery of intervention, secondary: nurses' experience of delivering intervention.

Methods: Each intervention session with every participant was video recorded and formed part of fidelity assessment. Fidelity checklists were completed by the research nurse after each session and by an independent researcher, after viewing the video-recordings blinded to nurse ratings. Fidelity scores (%), percentage agreement and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated. Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with the research nurse.

Results: Fourteen participants completed all visits. 62 treatment sessions took place. Nurse self-report and assessor video rating scores for all 62 treatment sessions were included in fidelity assessment. Overall fidelity was higher on nurse self-report (97.7%) than on objective video-rating (84.2%). Percentage agreement between nurse self-report and video-rating was 73.3% (95% CI 71.3 to 75.3). Fidelity was lowest for advice on footwear and walking aids. The nurse reported difficulty advising on thermal treatments, footwear and walking aids, and did not feel confident negotiating achievable and realistic goals with participants.

Conclusions: A trained research nurse can deliver most components of a non-pharmacological intervention for knee pain to a high degree of fidelity. Future research should assess intervention fidelity in a routine clinical setting, and examine its clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration number: NCT03670706.

Keywords: knee; musculoskeletal disorders; rheumatology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Agreement between nurse-rated and video-rated methods for the components of the intervention. Values shown are % agreement and error bars indicate the 95% CI.

References

    1. Jinks C, Jordan K, Ong BN, et al. . A brief screening tool for knee pain in primary care (KNEST). 2. results from a survey in the general population aged 50 and over. Rheumatology 2004;43:55–61. 10.1093/rheumatology/keg438
    1. NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Osteoarthritis: care and management, 2014.
    1. Egerton T, Nelligan RK, Setchell J, et al. . General practitioners' views on managing knee osteoarthritis: a thematic analysis of factors influencing clinical practice guideline implementation in primary care. BMC Rheumatol 2018;2:30. 10.1186/s41927-018-0037-4
    1. Porcheret M, Jordan K, Jinks C, et al. . Primary care treatment of knee pain--a survey in older adults. Rheumatology 2007;46:1694–700. 10.1093/rheumatology/kem232
    1. Doherty M, Jenkins W, Richardson H, et al. . Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care involving education and engagement of patients and a treat-to-target urate-lowering strategy versus usual care for gout: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2018;392:1403–12. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32158-5
    1. Saffi MAL, Polanczyk CA, Rabelo-Silva ER. Lifestyle interventions reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2014;13:436–43. 10.1177/1474515113505396
    1. Strömberg A, Mårtensson J, Fridlund B, et al. . Nurse-Led heart failure clinics improve survival and self-care behaviour in patients with heart failure: results from a prospective, randomised trial. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1014–23. 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00112-X
    1. Welch G, Garb J, Zagarins S, et al. . Nurse diabetes case management interventions and blood glucose control: results of a meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;88:1–6. 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.12.026
    1. Allen JD, Linnan LA, Emmons KM. Fidelity and its relationship to implementation effectiveness, adaptation, and dissemination. In: Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice, 2012: 281–304.
    1. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, et al. . A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 2007;2:40. 10.1186/1748-5908-2-40
    1. Moncher FJ, Prinz RJ. Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clin Psychol Rev 1991;11:247–66. 10.1016/0272-7358(91)90103-2
    1. Colditz GA, Emmons KM. The promise and challenges of dissemination and implementation research. In: Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice, 2012: 3–22.
    1. Borrelli B. The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. J Public Health Dent 2011;71:S52–63. 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00233.x
    1. Walker MF, Hoffmann TC, Brady MC, et al. . Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017;12:472–9. 10.1177/1747493017711815
    1. Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B, et al. . Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change Consortium. Health Psychol 2004;23:443–51. 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443
    1. French SD, Green SE, Francis JJ, et al. . Evaluation of the fidelity of an interactive face-to-face educational intervention to improve general practitioner management of back pain. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007886. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007886
    1. Jobe JB. Cognitive psychology and self-reports: models and methods. Qual Life Res 2003;12:219–27. 10.1023/A:1023279029852
    1. Schulte AC, Easton JE, Parker J. Advances in treatment integrity research: multidisciplinary perspectives on the conceptualization, measurement, and enhancement of treatment integrity. School Psychology Review 2009;38:460–75
    1. Huijg JM, Dusseldorp E, Gebhardt WA, et al. . Factors associated with physical therapists' implementation of physical activity interventions in the Netherlands. Phys Ther 2015;95:539–57. 10.2522/ptj.20130457
    1. McKenna JW, Flower A, Ciullo S. Measuring fidelity to improve intervention effectiveness. Interv Sch Clin 2014;50:15–21. 10.1177/1053451214532348
    1. Toomey E, Matthews J, Guerin S, et al. . Development of a feasible implementation fidelity protocol within a complex physical Therapy-Led self-management intervention. Phys Ther 2016;96:1287–98. 10.2522/ptj.20150446
    1. Toomey E, Matthews J, Hurley DA. Using mixed methods to assess fidelity of delivery and its influencing factors in a complex self-management intervention for people with osteoarthritis and low back pain. BMJ Open 2017;7:e015452. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015452
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655. 10.1136/bmj.a1655
    1. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, et al. . Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res 2006;16:377–94. 10.1177/1049732305285708
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. . Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. 10.1136/bmj.h1258
    1. Hall M, Fuller A, Nomikos PA, et al. . East Midlands knee pain multiple randomised controlled trial cohort study: cohort establishment and feasibility study protocol. BMJ Open 2020;10:e037760. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037760
    1. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. 5 edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2014.
    1. Millar B, McWilliams DF, Abhishek A, et al. . Investigating musculoskeletal health and wellbeing; a cohort study protocol. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21:1–10. 10.1186/s12891-020-03195-4
    1. Bellamy N. WOMAC osteoarthritis index user guide. vol. 5. Brisbane, Australia, 2002.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. . Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. 10.1136/bmj.g1687
    1. Michie S, Rumsey N, Fussell A. Improving health: changing behaviour. In: Nhs health trainer Handbook, 2008.
    1. Walton H, Spector A, Roberts A, et al. . Developing strategies to improve fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, a complex intervention to improve independence in dementia: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;20:1–19. 10.1186/s12874-020-01006-x
    1. Ang K, Hepgul N, Gao W, et al. . Strategies used in improving and assessing the level of reporting of implementation fidelity in randomised controlled trials of palliative care complex interventions: a systematic review. Palliat Med 2018;32:500–16. 10.1177/0269216317717369
    1. Borrelli B, Sepinwall D, Ernst D, et al. . A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005;73:852–60. 10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.852
    1. Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 2006;27:237–46. 10.1177/1098214005283748
    1. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, et al. . Squire 2.0 (standards for quality improvement reporting excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:986–92. 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
    1. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 2012;22:276–82. 10.11613/BM.2012.031
    1. Williams SL, McSharry J, Taylor C, et al. . Translating a walking intervention for health professional delivery within primary care: a mixed-methods treatment fidelity assessment. Br J Health Psychol 2020;25:17–38. 10.1111/bjhp.12392
    1. Hardeman W, Michie S, Fanshawe T, et al. . Fidelity of delivery of a physical activity intervention: predictors and consequences. Psychol Health 2008;23:11–24. 10.1080/08870440701615948
    1. Radford K, Sutton C, Sach T, et al. . Early, specialist vocational rehabilitation to facilitate return to work after traumatic brain injury: the fresh feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess 2018;22:1–124. 10.3310/hta22330

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe