The ParentingWell Practice Approach: Adaptation of Let’s Talk About Children for Parents With Mental Illness in Adult Mental Health Services in the United States

Background This paper describes the process and results of a refinement of a framework to characterize modifications to interventions. The original version did not fully capture several aspects of modification and adaptation that may be important to document and report. Additionally, the earlier framework did not include a way to differentiate cultural adaptation from adaptations made for other reasons. Reporting additional elements will allow for a more precise understanding of modifications, the process of modifying or adapting, and the relationship between different forms of modification and subsequent health and implementation outcomes. Discussion We employed a multifaceted approach to develop the updated FRAME involving coding documents identified through a literature review, rapid coding of qualitative interviews, and a refinement process informed by multiple stakeholders. The updated FRAME expands upon Stirman et al.’s original framework by adding components of modification to report: (1) when and how in the implementation process the modification was made, (2) whether the modification was planned/proactive (i.e., an adaptation) or unplanned/reactive, (3) who determined that the modification should be made, (4) what is modified, (5) at what level of delivery the modification is made, (6) type or nature of context or content-level modifications, (7) the extent to which the modification is fidelity-consistent, and (8) the reasons for the modification, including (a) the intent or goal of the modification (e.g., to reduce costs) and (b) contextual factors that influenced the decision. Methods of using the framework to assess modifications are outlined, along with their strengths and weaknesses, and considerations for research to validate these measurement strategies. Conclusion The updated FRAME includes consideration of when and how modifications occurred, whether it was planned or unplanned, relationship to fidelity, and reasons and goals for modification. This tool that can be used to support research on the timing, nature, goals and reasons for, and impact of modifications to evidence-based interventions.

Without standardized definitions of the techniques included in behavior change interventions, it is difficult to faithfully replicate effective interventions and challenging to identify techniques contributing to effectiveness across interventions. This research aimed to develop and test a theory-linked taxonomy of generally applicable behavior change techniques (BCTs). Twenty-six BCTs were defined. Two psychologists used a 5-page coding manual to independently judge the presence or absence of each technique in published intervention descriptions and in intervention manuals. Three systematic reviews yielded 195 published descriptions. Across 78 reliability tests (i.e., 26 techniques applied to 3 reviews), the average kappa per technique was 0.79, with 93% of judgments being agreements. Interventions were found to vary widely in the range and type of techniques used, even when targeting the same behavior among similar participants. The average agreement for intervention manuals was 85%, and a comparison of BCTs identified in 13 manuals and 13 published articles describing the same interventions generated a technique correspondence rate of 74%, with most mismatches (73%) arising from identification of a technique in the manual but not in the article. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of developing standardized definitions of BCTs included in behavioral interventions and highlight problematic variability in the reporting of intervention content.