Skip to main content

Table 1 Proportion (%) of papers from past systematic reviews addressing receipt as defined in the BCC framework

From: Methods used to address fidelity of receipt in health intervention research: a citation analysis and systematic review

Methods for addressing fidelity of intervention receipt Borelli et al. [10] Johnson-Kozlow et al. [15] McArthur et al. [16] Garbacz et al. [14] Preyde et al. [17]
1. Assessed participants’ understanding of the intervention 40 52 0 69 30
2. Included a strategy to improve participants’ understanding 52 79 0 66 61
3. Assessed participants’ ability to perform the intervention skills 50 59 50 65 39
4. Included a strategy to improve participants’ performance of intervention skills 53 69 50 66 64
Denominator for proportions presented 325–332a 29 10 65 28
  1. Note: aIn Borelli et al. [10], the denominator for the proportions provided is the total number of papers for which the method used to address intervention receipt was considered appropriate/applicable by the reviewers, rather than the total number of papers included in the review, i.e. 342. This was 332 for method 1,331 for method 2,326 for method 3, and 325 for method 4