Fidelity, pragmatism and the “grey line” in between—exploring the delivery of a pragmatic physical activity randomised controlled trial—a secondary analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Intervention fidelity in health services research has been poor with a reported lack of understanding about what constitutes pragmatic adaptation of interventions and what constitutes failure to maintain intervention fidelity. However, the challenges facing those delivering such interventions have not been thoroughly explored. The aims of this study were to critically explore the challenges in maintaining fidelity experienced by physiotherapy staff and support workers when delivering a complex intervention for older people living with frailty. Methods This study is a secondary analysis of data from a process evaluation of a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The process evaluation employed qualitative methodologies with mixed methods including a variety of data collection methods, including participant observation, semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis. Thematic analysis was used to make sense of the data. Results Many therapy staff felt ongoing confusion about what was acceptable to adapt and what needed to follow the protocol exactly. We found that some therapy staff were able to embrace the challenges of pragmatically adapting interventions while maintaining intervention fidelity, others stuck rigidly to the protocol and failed to adapt interventions where it was necessary. Conclusion It was clear that the understanding of fidelity and pragmatism was poor. While pragmatic trials are vital to replicate real world clinical practice, further guidance may need to be developed in order to guide the level of adaptation that is acceptable before fidelity is undermined.

Keywords

• Fidelity
• Pragmatism
• RCTs
• Rehabilitation