Cited by 102Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Reporting of Treatment Fidelity in Mindfulness-Based Intervention Trials: A Review and New Tool Using NIH Behavior Change Consortium Guidelines

Open access
Kechter, Afton, Amaro, Hortensia, Black, David S.·2019·Mindfulness

Abstract

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are in the fourth decade of adaptation and testing, yet little is known about their level of treatment fidelity. Treatment fidelity is a methodological strategy used to monitor and enhance the reliability and validity of behavioral interventions. The Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) put forth recommendations covering five components of treatment fidelity: design, training, delivery, receipt, and enactment. We conducted a literature review to describe how these five components of treatment fidelity are reported in published main outcomes articles of MBI efficacy trials among adult participants. Our search yielded 202 articles and we identified 25 (12%) described study treatment fidelity. All 25 studies reported on design, n=24 (96%) reported on training, n=23 (92%) reported on delivery, n=23 (92%) reported on receipt, and n=16 (64%) reported on enactment. Eleven (44%) articles analyzed measures of receipt and enactment with a participant outcome. Fourteen (56%) articles reported on all five fidelity components. There was high variation in the way each component was conducted and/or reported, making comparisons across articles difficult. To address the prevailing limitation that the majority of MBI efficacy studies did not detail treatment fidelity, we offer the Treatment Fidelity Tool for MBIs adapted from the BCC guidelines to help researchers monitor and report these methods and measures in a simple and standardized format. By using this tool, researchers have the opportunity to improve the transparency and interpretability of the MBI evidence base.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-018-0974-4

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fidelity to each MBP protocol was assessed after each session with an adapted treatment fidelity tool based on Kechter et al. (2019) recommendations.

    “Fidelity to each MBPs protocol was assessed after each session, with an adapted treatment fidelity tool, which is based on Kechter et al. (2019) recommendations for reporting treatment fidelity in MBP trials.”

    From Testing Mindfulness Mechanisms of Action on the Stress and Burnout of Social Workers (2024) · cites this paper as Kechter et al., 2019

  • Facilitators assessed whether they had followed each week's session plan using a treatment fidelity tool based on Kechter et al. (2018) MBP treatment fidelity reporting recommendations.

    “Facilitators assessed whether they had followed each week's session plan using a treatment fidelity tool based on Kechter et al. (2018) MBP treatment fidelity reporting recommendations.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kechter, A., Amaro, H., & Black, D. S.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Kechter, Afton
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2018-06-22
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
215-233
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W2809044941
Cited by
102
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 1
FWCI
18.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (5T32CA009492-33)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (5R01DA038648)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
intervention fidelity, mindfulness-based interventions, intervention delivery, therapist training, treatment receipt, reporting guidelines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review