Skip to main content

Table 2 Checklist and frameworks for data extraction

From: Virtual follow-up and care for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices: protocol for a systematic review

TIDieR checklista

1. Brief name: name or phrase describing the intervention.

2. Why: rationale, theory, or goal of elements essential to intervention.

3. What (materials): physical or informational materials used, and where they can be accessed.

4. What (procedure): procedures, activities, and/or processes used in the intervention, including any enabling or support activities.

5. Who provided: background, expertise of provider, and training given.

6. How: modes of delivery, delivered to group or individual.

7. Where: type of location.

8. When and how much: number of times, number of sessions, intensity, and over what time period delivered.

9. Tailoring: what, why, when, and how of planned personalisation/adaptation.

10. Modification: what, why, when, and how of intervention modification during study.

11. How well (planned): if intervention adherence/fidelity was assessed, describe how and by whom, and if any strategies were used to maintain/improve fidelity.

12. How well (actual): if intervention adherence/fidelity was assessed, describe the extent to which the intervention was delivered as planned.

Describing interventions in sufficient detail that they can be replicated and contextual details are documented.

Allows for structured accounts of virtual follow-up or care interventions which will facilitate comparisons across included studies and strengthen understanding about how these interventions are designed and delivered.

CICI checklistb, c

Context: 7 domains (geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal and political).

1. Which aspects of the context interact with the implementation of the intervention?

2. How do these aspects of the context interact with the intervention?

3. How do these aspects of the context interact with implementation?

Setting:

4. Which aspects of the setting interact with the intervention?

5. How does the setting interact with the intervention?

6. How does the setting interact with the context?

7. How does the setting interact with the implementation?

Framework used for assessing context and setting (along with implementation) of complex health interventions.

We will use as a determinant framework (to conceptualise, describe and understand multiple influences on outcomes).

PROGRESS-Plus frameworkc

 

PROGRESS:

1. Place of residence

2. Race

3. Occupation

4. Gender

5. Religion

6. Social network and capital

7. Socioeconomic status.

PLUS:

1. Age

2. Disability

3. Sexual orientation

4. Other vulnerable groups.

Permits an equity lens and is used for identifying factors that may affect how disadvantaged groups engage with the intervention, and how PROGRESS-Plus factors may impact access to and use of the intervention. We will also assess the use of equity-relevant outcome measures and summarize results when available to consider whether there are negative or positive impacts to the PROGRESS factors.

  1. aAdapted from Hoffmann et al. 2014: Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide
  2. bAdapted from Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):21
  3. cCICI items related to implementation activities and intervention description will not be extracted. Intervention descriptions will be extracted using TIDieR checklist items. Implementation experience will be documented in a separate systematic review and qualitative synthesis
  4. dAdapted from O’Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M, et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2014;67(1):56-64