SUpporting wellbeing through PEeR-Befriending (SUPERB) feasibility trial: fidelity of peer-befriending for people with aphasia

Nicholas Behn, Becky Moss, Sally McVicker, Abi Roper, Sarah Northcott, Jane Marshall, Shirley Thomas, Alan Simpson, Chris Flood, Kirsty James, Kimberley Goldsmith, Katerina Hilari, Nicholas Behn, Becky Moss, Sally McVicker, Abi Roper, Sarah Northcott, Jane Marshall, Shirley Thomas, Alan Simpson, Chris Flood, Kirsty James, Kimberley Goldsmith, Katerina Hilari

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate systematically the fidelity of a peer-befriending intervention for people with aphasia.

Design: SUpporting wellbeing through Peer-befriending (SUPERB) was a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing usual care to usual care +peer-befriending. This paper reports on the fidelity of all intervention aspects (training and supervision of providers/befrienders; intervention visits) which was evaluated across all areas of the Behaviour Change Consortium framework.

Setting: Community.

Participants: People with aphasia early poststroke and low levels of distress, randomised to the intervention arm of the trial (n=28); 10 peer-befrienders at least 1-year poststroke.

Intervention: Peer-befrienders were trained (4-6 hours); and received regular supervision (monthly group while actively befriending, and one-to-one as and when needed) in order to provide six 1-hour peer-befriending visits over 3 months.

Main measures: Metrics included number and length of training, supervision sessions and visits. All training and supervision sessions and one (of six) visits per pair were rated against fidelity checklists and evaluated for inter-rater and intrarater reliability (Gwets AC1 agreement coefficient). Per-cent adherence to protocol was evaluated.

Results: All peer-befrienders received 4-6 hours training over 2-3 days as intended. There were 25 group supervision sessions with a median number attended of 14 (IQR=8-18). Twenty-six participants agreed (92.8%) to the intervention and 21 (80.8%) received all six visits (median visit length 60 min). Adherence was high for training (91.7%-100%) and supervision (83%-100%) and moderate-to-high for befriending visits (66.7%-100%). Where calculable, inter-rater and intrarater reliability was high for training and supervision (Gwets AC1 >0.90) and moderate-to-high for intervention visits (Gwets AC1 0.44-1.0).

Conclusion: Planning of fidelity processes at the outset of the trial and monitoring throughout was feasible and ensured good-to-high fidelity for this peer-befriending intervention. The results permit confidence in other findings from the SUPERB trial.

Trial registration number: NCT02947776.

Keywords: clinical trials; depression & mood disorders; rehabilitation medicine; statistics & research methods; stroke.

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.

References

    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. Mowbray CT, Holter MC, Teague GB, et al. . Fidelity criteria: development, measurement, and validation. Am J Eval 2003;24:315–40. 10.1177/109821400302400303
    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. Resnick B, Inguito P, Orwig D, et al. . Treatment fidelity in behavior change research: a case example. Nurs Res 2005;54:139–43. 10.1097/00006199-200503000-00010
    1. Hohmann AA, Shear MK. Community-based intervention research: coping with the "noise" of real life in study design. Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:201–7. 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.2.201
    1. Perepletchikova F, Treat TA, Kazdin AE. Treatment integrity in psychotherapy research: analysis of the studies and examination of the associated factors. J Consult Clin Psychol 2007;75:829–41. 10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.829
    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. 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. Hinckley JJ, Douglas NF. Treatment fidelity: its importance and reported frequency in aphasia treatment studies. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2013;22:S279–84. 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0092
    1. Brogan E, Ciccone N, Godecke E. Treatment fidelity in aphasia randomised controlled trials. Aphasiology 2019;33:759–79. 10.1080/02687038.2019.1576442
    1. Mead N, Lester H, Chew-Graham C, et al. . Effects of befriending on depressive symptoms and distress: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2010;196:96–101. 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.064089
    1. Siette J, Cassidy M, Priebe S. Effectiveness of befriending interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014304. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014304
    1. Solomon P. Peer support/peer provided services underlying processes, benefits, and critical ingredients. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2004;27:392–401. 10.2975/27.2004.392.401
    1. Richards DA, Bower P, Pagel C, et al. . Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice. Implement Sci 2012;7:3. 10.1186/1748-5908-7-3
    1. Kauhanen M, Korpelainen JT, Hiltunen P, et al. . Poststroke depression correlates with cognitive impairment and neurological deficits. Stroke 1999;30:1875–80. 10.1161/01.STR.30.9.1875
    1. Hilari K, Behn N, Marshall J, et al. . Adjustment with aphasia after stroke: study protocol for a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial for supporting wellbeing through peer befriending (SUPERB). Pilot Feasibility Stud 2019;5:14. 10.1186/s40814-019-0397-6
    1. Hilari K, Behn N, James K. Supporting wellbeing through peer-befriending (SUPERB) for people with aphasia: a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2021;35:1151–63. 10.1177/0269215521995671
    1. Kertesz A. Western aphasia battery - revised (WAB-R), 2006
    1. Helm-Estabrooks N. Cognitive linguistic quick test (CLQT), 2001
    1. Enderby P, Wood V, Wade D. Frenchay aphasia screening test (FAST). West Sussex: Wiley, 1986.
    1. Walton H, Spector A, Williamson M, et al. . Developing quality fidelity and engagement measures for complex health interventions. Br J Health Psychol 2020;25:39–60. 10.1111/bjhp.12394
    1. Dixon D, Johnston M. Health behaviour change competency framework: Competences to deliver interventions to change lifestyle behaviours that affect health 2010. Available: [Accessed 17 Feb 2017].
    1. Kagan A, Winckel J, Black S, et al. . A set of observational measures for rating support and participation in conversation between adults with aphasia and their conversation partners. Top Stroke Rehabil 2004;11:67–83. 10.1310/CL3V-A94A-DE5C-CVBE
    1. Kladouchou V, Papathanasiou I, Efstratiadou EA, et al. . Treatment integrity of elaborated semantic feature analysis aphasia therapy delivered in individual and group settings. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017;52:733–49. 10.1111/1460-6984.12311
    1. Heilemann C, Best W, Johnson F. Investigating treatment fidelity in a conversation-based therapy. Aphasie und Verwandte Gebiete 2014;2:14–26.
    1. Gwet KL. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters.. In: 4Th. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC, 2014.
    1. Gwet KL. Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters social capital and health. 1, 2002: 1–6.
    1. Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T, Wedding D, et al. . A comparison of Cohen's kappa and Gwet's AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:61. 10.1186/1471-2288-13-61
    1. Flood C, Behn N, Marshall J. A pilot economic evaluation of a feasibility trial for supporting wellbeing through PEeR-Befriending for post stroke aphasia (SUPERB). Clinical rehabilitation. submitted.
    1. Moss B, Behn N, Northcott S. “Loneliness can also kill:” a qualitative exploration of outcomes and experiences of the SUPERB peer-befriending scheme for people with aphasia and their significant others. Disabil Rehabil 2021;231:1–10. 10.1080/09638288.2021.1922519
    1. Conlon EL, Braun EJ, Babbitt EM, et al. . Treatment fidelity procedures for an aphasia intervention within a randomized controlled trial: design, feasibility, and results. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2020;29:412–24. 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-CAC48-18-0227
    1. Kagan A, Black SE, Duchan FJ, et al. . Training volunteers as conversation partners using "Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia" (SCA): a controlled trial. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001;44:624–38. 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/051
    1. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008;41:327–50. 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
    1. Hart T, Brockway JA, Whyte J, et al. . Analyzing the ingredients of a telephone counseling intervention for traumatic brain injury. Disabil Rehabil 2013;35:1668–75. 10.3109/09638288.2012.751131
    1. Davidson B, Howe T, Worrall L, et al. . Social participation for older people with aphasia: the impact of communication disability on friendships. Top Stroke Rehabil 2008;15:325–40. 10.1310/tsr1504-325
    1. Orwin RG. Assessing program fidelity in substance abuse health services research. Addiction 2000;95(Suppl 3):S309–27. 10.1080/09652140020004250
    1. Palmer R, Dimairo M, Latimer N, et al. . Computerised speech and language therapy or attention control added to usual care for people with long-term post-stroke aphasia: the big cactus three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020;24:1–176. 10.3310/hta24190
    1. Jackson HJ, McGorry PD, Killackey E, et al. . Acute-Phase and 1-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of CBT versus Befriending for first-episode psychosis: the ACE project. Psychol Med 2008;38:725–35. 10.1017/S0033291707002061
    1. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2012;8:23–34. 10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
    1. Carragher M, Ryan B, Worrall L, et al. . Fidelity protocol for the action success knowledge (ASK) trial: a psychosocial intervention administered by speech and language therapists to prevent depression in people with post-stroke aphasia. BMJ Open 2019;9:e023560. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023560
    1. Thomas SA, Russell C, Seed R, et al. . An evaluation of treatment integrity in a randomized trial of behavioural therapy for low mood in stroke patients with aphasia. Clin Rehabil 2013;27:1097–106. 10.1177/0269215513489579
    1. Forster A, Dickerson J, Young J, et al. . A cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke: the TRACS trial. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1–216. 10.3310/hta17460
    1. McVicker S, Swinburn K. How to set up a befriending scheme: a guide for scheme organisers. UK: Connect Press, 2009.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi