Methoden vergleichen

	Fidelity Assessment in der Implementierung	Implementationsergebnis-Taxonomie
Fachgebiet	Implementierungsforschung	Implementierungsforschung
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	2004	2011
Urheber	National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium; Bellg et al.	Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al.
Typ	Method	Taxonomy
Wegweisende Quelle	Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., Resnick, B., Hecht, J., Minicucci, D. S., Ory, M., ... & Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychology, 23(5), 443-451.	Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76.
Aliasnamen	fidelity, treatment fidelity, protocol adherence, implementation fidelity	implementation outcomes, Proctor framework, implementation success measures
Verwandt	5	5
Zusammenfassung	Fidelity Assessment is the systematic measurement of the degree to which an intervention is delivered as designed in real-world practice. Formalized by the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium (Bellg et al. 2004) and expanded in MRC guidance (Moore et al. 2015), fidelity assessment is critical to implementation science because it answers: 'Did we deliver the intervention correctly?' A clinical trial may show a treatment works, but if delivered poorly in practice, benefits disappear. Fidelity assessment prevents misattribution of failure (was the intervention weak, or was implementation poor?) and guides coaching to improve quality.	The Implementation Outcome Taxonomy is a framework defining eight measurable dimensions for assessing implementation success: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Developed by Proctor et al. (2011), it provides a standardized vocabulary and measurement approach to distinguish implementation process outcomes (how well was the intervention delivered?) from clinical outcomes (did patients get better?). This taxonomy is foundational to implementation science because it acknowledges that an evidence-based intervention can be effective (clinical outcome) but poorly implemented (implementation outcome), or feasible to deliver but not adopted by organizations.