↓ Skip to main content

Assessing treatment fidelity and contamination in a cluster randomised controlled trial of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy skills in type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Assessing treatment fidelity and contamination in a cluster randomised controlled trial of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy skills in type 2 diabetes
Published in
BMC Family Practice, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0742-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Magill, Helen Graves, Nicole de Zoysa, Kirsty Winkley, Stephanie Amiel, Emma Shuttlewood, Sabine Landau, Khalida Ismail

Abstract

Competencies in psychological techniques delivered by primary care nurses to support diabetes self-management were compared between the intervention and control arms of a cluster randomised controlled trial as part of a process evaluation. The trial was pragmatic and designed to assess effectiveness. This article addresses the question of whether the care that was delivered in the intervention and control trial arms represented high fidelity treatment and attention control, respectively. Twenty-three primary care nurses were either trained in motivational interviewing (MI) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) skills or delivered attention control. Nurses' skills in these treatments were evaluated soon after training (treatment arm) and treatment fidelity was assessed after treatment delivery for sessions midway through regimen (both arms) using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) domains and Behaviour Change Counselling Index (BECCI) based on consultations with 151 participants (45% of those who entered the study). The MITI Global Spirit subscale measured demonstration of MI principles: evocation, collaboration, autonomy/support. After training, median MITI MI-Adherence was 86.2% (IQR 76.9-100%) and mean MITI Empathy was 4.09 (SD 1.04). During delivery of treatment, in the intervention arm mean MITI Spirit was 4.03 (SD 1.05), mean Empathy was 4.23 (SD 0.89), and median Percentage Complex Reflections was 53.8% (IQR 40.0-71.4%). In the attention control arm mean Empathy was 3.40 (SD 0.98) and median Percentage Complex Reflections was 55.6% (IQR 41.9-71.4%). After MI and CBT skills training, detailed assessment showed that nurses had basic competencies in some psychological techniques. There appeared to be some delivery of elements of psychological treatment by nurses in the control arm. This model of training and delivery of MI and CBT skills integrated into routine nursing care to support diabetes self-management in primary care was not associated with high competency levels in all skills. ISRCTN75776892 ; date registered: 19/05/2010.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Unspecified 5 10%
Librarian 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Psychology 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Unspecified 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,675,052
of 13,022,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#522
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,943
of 269,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,022,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them