From: Assessing the fidelity of a peer-led chronic pain management program (PAP)
PV’s behavior | Level of implementation observed, N (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Low/not observed | Small | Medium | High | |
General observations on the organization of the teaching | ||||
1. Were the materials ready for each activity? | 138 (100) | |||
2. Was the PV organized and familiar with the manual for teaching the PAP? | 5 (3.6) | 133 (96.4) | ||
3. Was the PV teaching according to the teaching manual? | 138 (100) | |||
4. Did the PV complete all parts of the session? | 1 (0.7) | 137 (99.3) | ||
5. Did the PV provide opportunities for the participants to respond? | 138 (100) | |||
6. Did the PV use session activities? | 138 (100) | |||
On encouragement | ||||
1. Did the PV use the principle of pain self-management as laid out in the teaching manual? | 138 (100) | |||
2. Did the PV teach the residents to maintain functional activities, e.g., grooming and walking even in situations of pain? | 138 (100) | |||
3. Did the PV explain to the participants the importance of using various strategies that can help to relieve pain and pain-related situations? | 138 (100) | |||
4. Did the PV practice non-pharmacological strategies with the participants? | 138 (100) | |||
5. Did the PV encourage the participants to self-practice the strategies for pain relief that they learned in class? | 138 (100) |