Table 1 Coding frame items informed by a priori hypothesised active ingredients and grounded theory
Items informed by a priori hypothesised active ingredients | Â | |
|---|---|---|
Nurse delivery | Number of items and scales | Inter-rater agreementa,b |
Protocol adherence | One item (5-point Likert type scale, ‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | 93.9% |
Competence | One item (‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | 85.7% |
Motivational techniques | Elicitation of patient beliefs: eight binary items (yes, no): (dis)advantages, good and bad feelings, (lack of) support, facilitators and barriers regarding taking medication as prescribed. | Elicitation: M = 99.5%; range 98.0-100.0%. |
Reinforcement and problem solving of relevant beliefs: eight items each (yes, no, not applicable if no beliefs to reinforce or problem solve). | Reinforcement: M = 78.6%; range 69.4-89.8%. Problem solving: M = 76.0%; range 69.4-87.8%. | |
Action planning techniques | Prompt elaboration of action plan for each dose taken: one item (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)). | M = 82.3%, range 77.6-87.8%. |
Patient receipt | Number of items and scales | Inter-rater agreement a,b |
Generation of beliefs | Eight binary items (yes/no). Items were scored as ‘yes’ if patients mentioned a relevant belief or said that they could not think of anything. | M = 92.6%, range 85.7-98.0%. |
Formulation of action plans | Level of difficulty of each plan: one item (‘very difficult’ (1) to ‘very easy’ (5)). | M = 89.8%, range 87.8-93.9%. |
Vocal formulation of each plan: one item (‘to a very small extent’ (1) to ‘to a very great extent’ (5)). | M = 87.8%; range 85.7-91.8%. | |
Who wrote each plan: one item (nurse, patient, unsure, other). | M = 94.6%, range 91.8-98.0%. | |
Who read out each plan: one item (nurse, patient, unsure, other). | M = 93.2%, range 89.8-98.0% | |
Read out in ‘if… then…’ format: one item (yes, no, not read out) | M = 93.9%, range 91.8-98.0% | |
Number of changes in each plan compared to existing routines: one item (‘very few/none’ (1) to ‘very many’ (5))’ | M = 96.6%, range 95.9-98.0% | |
Items identified through grounded theory | Â | |
Nurse delivery | Number of items and scales | Inter-rater agreement a,b |
Communication style | Four items: professional/authoritative, friendly/relaxed, anxious/tentative, and angry/irritated (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)). | Intervention: M = 83.7%, range 71.4-98.0% |
Standard care: M = 73.5%, range 67.4-79.6%. | ||
Positive and negative aspects of communication | Nine items: agreement, disagreement, rapport facilitation and inhibition, partnership facilitation and inhibition, giving information, counselling/directing behaviour, and social behaviour (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)). | Intervention: M = 83.5%, range 75.5-95.9%. |
Standard care: M = 69.6%, 55.1-85.7%. | ||
Engagement with the intervention | One item (‘very disengaged’ (1) to ‘very engaged’ (5)). | 93.9% |
Nurse-patient relationship | One item for relationship quality (‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | Intervention: 91.8% |
Standard care: 73.5% | ||
Patient receipt of intervention | Four items: engagement (‘very disengaged’ (1) to ‘very engaged’ (5)); amount of talk (‘very little’ (1) to ‘a lot’ (5)); question asking (‘very rarely/never’ (1) to ‘very frequently’ (5)); understanding (‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). | M = 89.8%, range 83.7-93.9%. |
General items | Number of items and scales | Inter-rater agreement a, c |
Duration | Five items: standard care (two items), intervention introduction, motivational component, action planning component (minutes:seconds). | M = 92.0%, range 84.0-100% |