TABLE 2.
Analyses of intervention videos
| Group a | Intervention fidelity | Rapport rating [mean (SD), range] | Communication pattern (n) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Components delivered as intended | Intervention delivered in full (all components—% participants) | |||
| Usual care (n = 9) | 100% (2 components) | 100 | 7.67 (0.87), 6–9 |
8 Supportive 1 Invalidating |
| Divided attention (n = 10) | 84% (10 components) | 20 | 7.10 (0.99), 5–8 |
9 Supportive 1 Invalidating |
| Positive memory reframing (n = 9) | 76% (7 components) | 22 | 7.44 (0.53), 7–8 | 9 Supportive |
| Divided attention + positive memory reframing (n = 10) | 87% (17 components) | 10 | 8.10 (0.32), 8–9 | 10 Supportive |
n = 3 videos were not available for analysis. Intervention fidelity: Interventions were coded according to the number of intervention components that were delivered as intended for each participant via a protocol checklist with three response categories: yes, no and partially. The proportion of components delivered as intended for each intervention overall (for all participants combined), as well as the proportion of participants for which the intervention was delivered in full, were then calculated. Rapport: assessed using a 0–10 point scale (0 = extremely poor quality, 10 = extremely high quality). Communication pattern: assessed using the scale provided in Cline et al. (2006) (adapted for nurses).