The Partners for Life Program: A Couples Approach to Cardiac Risk Reduction

Morbidity and mortality are reliably lower for the married compared with the unmarried across a variety of illnesses. What is less well understood is how a couple uses their relationship for recommended lifestyle changes associated with decreased risk for illness. Partners for Life compared a patient and partner approach to behavior change with a patient only approach on such factors as exercise, nutrition and medication adherence. Ninety-three patients and their spouses/partners consented to participate (26% of those eligible) and were randomized into either the individual or couples conditon. However, only 80 couples, distributed across conditions, contributed data to the analyses, due to missing data and missing data points. For exercise, there was a significant effect of couples treatment on the increase in activity and a significant effect of couples treatment on the acceleration of treatment over time. Additionally, there was an interaction between marital satisfaction and treatment condition such that patients who reported higher levels of marital distress in the individuals condition did not maintain their physical activity gains by the end of treatment, while both distressed and non-distressed patients in the couples treatment exhibited accelerating gains throughout treatment. In terms of medication adherence, patients in the couples treatment exhibited virtually no change in medication adherence over time, while patients in the individuals treatment showed a 9% relative decrease across time. There were no condition or time effects for nutritional outcomes. Finally, there was an interaction between baseline marital satisfaction and treatment condition such that patients in the individuals condition who reported lower levels of initial marital satisfaction showed deterioration in marital satisfaction, while non- satisfied patients in the couples treatment showed improvement over time

Examples of Implementation and Evaluation of Treatemnt Fidelity in the BCC Studies: Where we are and where we need to go

Treatment fidelity plays an important role in the research team\u27s ability to ensure that a treatment has been implemented as intended and that the treatment has been accurately tested. Developing, implementing, and evaluating a treatment fidelity plan can be challenging. The treatment fidelity workgroup within the Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) developed guidelines to comprehensively evaluate treatment fidelity in behavior change research. The guidelines include evaluation of treatment fidelity with regard to study design, training of interventionists, delivery and receipt of the intervention, and enactment of the intervention in real-life settings. This article describes these guidelines and provides examples from four BCC studies as to how these recommended guidelines for fidelity were considered. Future work needs to focus not only on implementing treatment fidelity plans but also on quantifying the evaluations performed, developing specific criteria for interpretation of the findings, and establishing best practices of treatment fidelity

A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research.

A. Bellg, B. Borrelli, et al. (2004) previously developed a framework that consisted of strategies to enhance treatment fidelity of health behavior interventions. The present study used this framework to (a) develop a measure of treatment fidelity and (b) use the measure to evaluate treatment fidelity in articles published in 5 journals over 10 years. Three hundred forty-two articles met inclusion criteria; 22% reported strategies to maintain provider skills, 27% reported checking adherence to protocol, 35% reported using a treatment manual, 54% reported using none of these strategies, and 12% reported using all 3 strategies. The mean proportion adherence to treatment fidelity strategies was .55; 15.5% of articles achieved greater than or equal to .80. This tool may be useful for researchers, grant reviewers, and editors planning and evaluating trials