Cited by 132Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsBehavioral Health and InterventionsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Differential attrition in health behaviour change trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Crutzen, Rik, Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, Spigt, Mark, Kotz, Daniel·2015·Psychology & Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Attrition is a common problem in health behaviour change (HBC) trials. When the degree of attrition differs between treatment conditions, then this is called differential attrition and is regarded as a major threat to internal validity. The primary research question of this study was: how often and to what degree does differential attrition occur in HBC trials? DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a random selection of HBC trials (k = 60). We meta-analysed the relative attrition rates using a random-effects model and examined the relationship between the relative attrition rates and the potential moderators: the amount of human contact in delivery and the intensity of the intervention/control condition, the type of control condition, and the follow-up intensity and duration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative attrition rates. RESULTS: The average attrition rate was 18% (SD = .15; M = .15) in the intervention and 17% (SD = .13; M = .13) in the control conditions. The estimated average relative attrition rate was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.01-1.20, p = .02), suggesting an overall higher attrition rate of 10% in the intervention conditions. This relative attrition rate was not related to any of the potential moderators. CONCLUSION: There is indication of a slightly higher amount of attrition on average in the intervention conditions of HBC trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870446.2014.953526

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crutzen, R., Viechtbauer, W., Spigt, M., & Kotz, D.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Cancer Research UK (GB)
Corresponding author
Crutzen, Rik
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2014-12-09
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
122-134
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W2160645377
Cited by
132
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
differential attrition, health behavior change interventions, attrition rates, internal validity, control conditions, intervention intensity, follow-up intensity
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Dropouts, Health Behavior, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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