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