Background In a large randomized trial, Utrecht PROactive Frailty Intervention Trial (U‐PROFIT), we evaluated the effectiveness of an integrated program on the preservation of daily functioning in older people in primary care that consisted of a frailty identification tool and a multicomponent nurse‐led care program. Examination of treatment fidelity is critical to successful translation of evidence‐based interventions into practice. Aims To assess treatment delivery, dose and content of nursing care delivered within the nurse‐led care program, and to explore if the delivery may have influenced the trial results. Methods A mixed‐methods study was conducted. Type and dose of nursing care were collected during the trial. Shortly after the trial, a focus group with nurses was conducted to explore reasons for the observed differences between the type and dose of nursing care delivered. Results A total of 835 older persons were included in the nurse‐led care program. The mean age was 75 years, 64% were female and 53.5% were living alone. The most frequent self‐reported conditions were loneliness (60.8%) and cognitive problems (59.4%). One‐third of the patients with a geriatric condition received an additional assessment (e.g., Mini‐Mental State Examination), and the majority of these patients received at least one nurse intervention (>85%). Most nursing care was delivered to patients at risk of falling and to those with urinary incontinence. Patients with nutrition problems seldom received nursing interventions. The nurses explained that differences in type and dose were influenced by the preference of the patient, the type of geriatric problem, and the time required to apply a nurse intervention. Linking Evidence to Action All intervention components were delivered; however, differences were observed in the type and dose of nursing care delivered across geriatric conditions. The findings better explain the treatment fidelity and suggest that there is room for improvement that may result in more beneficial patient outcomes.
LINK
This systematic review evaluates the implementation of treatment integrity procedures in outcome studies of youth interventions targeting behavioral problems. The Implementation of Treatment Integrity Procedures Scale (ITIPS), developed by Perepletchikova, Treat, and Kazdin (2007), was adapted (ITIPS-A) and used to evaluate 32 outcome studies of evidence-based interventions for youths with externalizing behavioral problems. Integrity measures were found to be still rare in these studies. Of the studies that took integrity into account, 80% approached adequacy in implementing procedures for treatment integrity. The ITIPS-A is recommended as an instrument to guide development of integrity instruments and the implementation of treatment integrity procedures in youth care.
DOCUMENT
During the past decades deinstitutionalisation policies have led to a transition from inpatient towards community mental health care. Many European countries implement Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) as an alternative for inpatient care for “difficult to reach” children and adolescents with severe mental illness. ACT is a well-organized low-threshold treatment modality; patients are actively approached in their own environment, and efforts are undertaken to strengthen the patient’s motivation for treatment. The assumption is that ACT may help to avoid psychiatric hospital admissions, enhance cost-effectiveness, stimulate social participation and support, and reduce stigma. ACT has been extensively investigated in adults with severe mental illness and various reviews support its effectiveness in this patient group. However, to date there is no review available regarding the effectiveness of youth-ACT. It is unknown whether youth-ACT is as effective as it is in adults. This review aims to assess the effects of youth-ACT on severity of psychiatric symptoms, general functioning, and psychiatric hospital admissions.
DOCUMENT
