Cited by 195Behavioral Health and InterventionsPhysical Activity and HealthHealth Policy Implementation Science

Fidelity of delivery of a physical activity intervention: Predictors and consequences

Hardeman, Wendy, Michie, Susan, Fanshawe, Tom, Prevost, A. Toby, Mcloughlin, Katharine, Kinmonth, Ann Louise·2008·Psychology & Health

Abstract

Assessing fidelity of behavioural interventions is important, but demanding and rarely done. This study assessed adherence to behaviour change techniques used in an intervention to increase physical activity among sedentary adults ( ProActive ; N = 365). Transcripts of 108 sessions with a sub-sample of 27 participants were assessed. An independent assessor coded adherence of four 'facilitators' who delivered the intervention to 208 protocol-specified facilitator behaviours (e.g. 'elicit perceived advantages of becoming more active') in four key sessions. Four raters classified the 208 behaviours under 14 techniques (e.g., goal setting, use of rewards) to enable calculation of adherence to techniques. Observed adherence to techniques across participants was modest (median 44%, IQR 35-62%), and lower than that reported by facilitators. Adherence differed between facilitators (range: 26-63%) and decreased across the four sessions (mean drop 9% per session, 95% confidence interval 7-11%). In this small sample facilitator adherence was unrelated to (change in) participants' physical activity or its cognitive predictors: Attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control and intention. Future research should investigate causal pathways between fidelity indicators and outcomes in larger samples and develop and test less intensive measures of fidelity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870440701615948

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 195

Authors
Hardeman, W., Michie, S., Fanshawe, T., Prevost, A. T., Mcloughlin, K., & Kinmonth, A. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hardeman, Wendy
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2007-12-14
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
11-24
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W1992546852
Cited by
195
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RDA/01/05/040)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
intervention fidelity, behaviour change techniques, physical activity promotion, sedentary adults, proactive intervention, session transcripts, theory of planned behavior
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior Therapy, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Psychological Theory, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Sedentary Behavior

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