Abstract
Objectives To explore whether practitioners can deliver the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based Wellbeing After Stroke intervention with fidelity to both the clinical protocol and the Acceptance and Commitment therapy model.
Design Observational fidelity study, embedded within the Wellbeing After Stroke study. Setting: online groups. UK.
Participants Practitioners employed by the Stroke Association, trained to deliver the intervention.
Measures 1) a bespoke Wellbeing After Stroke fidelity tool to assess fidelity to dose, duration and content of intervention sessions, self-completed by practitioners and a sub-set completed by researchers based on video recordings. We calculated inter-rater reliability of researchers and practitioners. 2) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Fidelity Measure to assess fidelity to the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy model, completed by researchers on the sub-set of recorded sessions.
Results Seven practitioners delivered the Wellbeing After Stroke intervention to three groups of stroke survivors. The planned dose of the intervention was delivered, with duration slightly longer than planned. Practitioners delivered the intervention with high fidelity to protocol: 92–100% of content delivered, as measured by the Wellbeing After Stroke fidelity tool, once reliability was established. Some practitioners delivered the intervention with fidelity to the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy model.
Conclusions Trained and supervised practitioners can deliver an online, group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based intervention to stroke survivors with high fidelity to protocol. Improving training may increase consistency with the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy model. The ACT-Fidelity Measure can be used to measure consistency of delivery of protocolised, group interventions, but adaptations would increase suitability to context.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT04655937
Funding Statement
This independent research was funded by the University of Manchester Research Impact Scholarship and a Stroke Association Postdoctoral Fellowship Award (Ref SA PDF 18100024). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funders. Funders had no role in study design, execution, analysis or results interpretation.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the University of Manchester gave ethnical approval for this work (ref 2021-11134-18220).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
1. Dr Emma Patchwood. emma.patchwood{at}manchester.ac.uk
2. Prof Audrey Bowen. Audrey.bowen{at}manchester.ac.uk
3. Dr Sarah Cotteril Sarah.cotterill{at}manchester.ac.uk
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
