Establishing consensus on domains and items for Reporting intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: the ReFiND Delphi study
- 1School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
ObjectivesTo develop consensus on core domains and items to inform a reporting guideline for intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND).
DesignInternational, online three-round Delphi process.
MethodsWe invited researchers with expertise in intervention fidelity, non-drug, non-surgical trials, trial reporting, and process evaluation methods to take part in a three-round Delphi study. They rated the importance of 7 intervention fidelity domains and 79 items using a 9-point scale (1 to 3= not important, 4 to 6= important but not essential, 7 to 9= very important). A comment box was provided along with each domain and item for panellists to provide the rationale for their ratings. Consensus was defined as more than 70% of panellists rating 1-3 (exclusion) or 7-9 (inclusion) after two voting rounds. A summary of ratings and panellists rationale from Rounds One and Two were provided to panellists in Round Two and Three, respectively. We conducted a thematic analysis to synthesise qualitative data.
ResultsSixty-one panellists completed Round One, 55 completed Round Two and 56 completed Round Three. Panellists had diverse backgrounds and were from 21 countries, including six low- and middle-income countries. After three rounds, five domains (Intervention Design, Intervention Fidelity Measurement Methods, Provider Training, Intervention Delivery by Providers, Intervention Receipt by Participants) and 20 items reached consensus for inclusion in the reporting guideline. Panellists rationale for their ratings was based on how specifically each domain and item related to intervention fidelity, how feasible it would be to implement in practice, and how broadly it could be applied across different contexts.
ConclusionsUsing systematic methods, this study reached consensus on a core set of domains and items for inclusion in ReFiND. This core set provides a foundation for consistent and transparent reporting of intervention fidelity and helps researchers and clinicians better interpret and replicate interventions tested in non-drug, non-surgical trials.
Key messagesO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LIIntervention fidelity is poorly reported across non-drug, non-surgical trials C_LIO_LIThere is a lack of standardisation and conflicting information in intervention fidelity domains and reporting recommendations, making adequate reporting difficult C_LI
What this study addsO_LIUsing systematic methods, this study reached consensus on five domains and 20 items considered essential for fidelity reporting in non-drug, non-surgical trials C_LI
How this study might affect research, practice or policyO_LIThe findings of this study will inform a reporting guideline on intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND), supporting greater transparency, replication, and reproducibility of such interventions. C_LI
Related
- Risk-based pathology reporting after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastrointestinal cancer: international consensus standards
- Reporting and interpretation of respiratory metagenomic results in clinical practice: a systematic review and consensus guidelines from the UK NHS Respiratory Metagenomics Network
- Digital training to support delivery of an evidence-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for heart failure: a mixed-methods evaluation of healthcare professionals' training experiences and intervention fidelity.
- FIM Motorcycling sport-specific extension of the IOC consensus statement: methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport 2020.
- Structured reporting of diagnostic hysteroscopy findings in women with reproductive disorders: an ESGE–ESHRE–IFFS international consensus†ǂ
BibTeX
@misc{sousa2026establishing,
title = {{Establishing consensus on domains and items for Reporting intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: the ReFiND Delphi study}},
author = {F. Sousa and M. K. Farlie and T. Haines and B. Borrelli and C. Carroll and C. Mathews and D. C. Ribeiro and J. M. Fritz and M. Underwood and N. E. Foster and S. E. Lamb and Z. M. Sanchez and P. Malliaras},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.14.26362897},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.14.26362897v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Establishing consensus on domains and items for Reporting intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: the ReFiND Delphi study
AU - F. Sousa
AU - M. K. Farlie
AU - T. Haines
AU - B. Borrelli
AU - C. Carroll
AU - C. Mathews
AU - D. C. Ribeiro
AU - J. M. Fritz
AU - M. Underwood
AU - N. E. Foster
AU - S. E. Lamb
AU - Z. M. Sanchez
AU - P. Malliaras
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/14
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.14.26362897
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.14.26362897v1
AB - ObjectivesTo develop consensus on core domains and items to inform a reporting guideline for intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND). DesignInternational, online three-round Delphi process. MethodsWe invited researchers with expertise in intervention fidelity, non-drug, non-surgical trials, trial reporting, and process evaluation methods to take part in a three-round Delphi study. They rated the importance of 7 intervention fidelity domains and 79 items using a 9-point scale (1 to 3= not important, 4 to 6= important but not essential, 7 to 9= very important). A comment box was provided along with each domain and item for panellists to provide the rationale for their ratings. Consensus was defined as more than 70% of panellists rating 1-3 (exclusion) or 7-9 (inclusion) after two voting rounds. A summary of ratings and panellists rationale from Rounds One and Two were provided to panellists in Round Two and Three, respectively. We conducted a thematic analysis to synthesise qualitative data. ResultsSixty-one panellists completed Round One, 55 completed Round Two and 56 completed Round Three. Panellists had diverse backgrounds and were from 21 countries, including six low- and middle-income countries. After three rounds, five domains (Intervention Design, Intervention Fidelity Measurement Methods, Provider Training, Intervention Delivery by Providers, Intervention Receipt by Participants) and 20 items reached consensus for inclusion in the reporting guideline. Panellists rationale for their ratings was based on how specifically each domain and item related to intervention fidelity, how feasible it would be to implement in practice, and how broadly it could be applied across different contexts. ConclusionsUsing systematic methods, this study reached consensus on a core set of domains and items for inclusion in ReFiND. This core set provides a foundation for consistent and transparent reporting of intervention fidelity and helps researchers and clinicians better interpret and replicate interventions tested in non-drug, non-surgical trials. Key messagesO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LIIntervention fidelity is poorly reported across non-drug, non-surgical trials C_LIO_LIThere is a lack of standardisation and conflicting information in intervention fidelity domains and reporting recommendations, making adequate reporting difficult C_LI What this study addsO_LIUsing systematic methods, this study reached consensus on five domains and 20 items considered essential for fidelity reporting in non-drug, non-surgical trials C_LI How this study might affect research, practice or policyO_LIThe findings of this study will inform a reporting guideline on intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND), supporting greater transparency, replication, and reproducibility of such interventions. C_LI
ER -