Cited by 117Health Policy Implementation ScienceBehavioral Health and InterventionsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

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

Open access
Rixon, Lorna, Baron, Justine, McGale, Nadine, Lorencatto, Fabiana, Francis, Jill, Davies, Anna·2016·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Behaviour Change Consortium (BCC) framework acknowledges patients as active participants and supports the need to investigate the fidelity with which they receive interventions, i.e. receipt. According to this framework, addressing receipt consists in using strategies to assess or enhance participants' understanding and/or performance of intervention skills. This systematic review aims to establish the frequency with which receipt is addressed as defined in the BCC framework in health research, and to describe the methods used in papers informed by the BCC framework and in the wider literature. METHODS: A forward citation search on papers presenting the BCC framework was performed to determine the frequency with which receipt as defined in this framework was addressed. A second electronic database search, including search terms pertaining to fidelity, receipt, health and process evaluations was performed to identify papers reporting on receipt in the wider literature and irrespective of the framework used. These results were combined with forward citation search results to review methods to assess receipt. Eligibility criteria and data extraction forms were developed and applied to papers. Results are described in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 19.6% of 33 studies identified from the forward citation search to report on fidelity were found to address receipt. In 60.6% of these, receipt was assessed in relation to understanding and in 42.4% in relation to performance of skill. Strategies to enhance these were present in 12.1% and 21.1% of studies, respectively. Fifty-five studies were included in the review of the wider literature. Several frameworks and operationalisations of receipt were reported, but the latter were not always consistent with the guiding framework. Receipt was most frequently operationalised in relation to intervention content (16.4%), satisfaction (14.5%), engagement (14.5%), and attendance (14.5%). The majority of studies (90.0%) included subjective assessments of receipt. These relied on quantitative (76.0%) rather than qualitative (42.0%) methods and studies collected data on intervention recipients (50.0%), intervention deliverers (28.0%), or both (22.0%). Few studies (26.0%) reported on the reliability or validity of methods used. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt is infrequently addressed in health research and improvements to methods of assessment and reporting are required.

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 · 10.1186/s12913-016-1904-6

Cites

106 of 106 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

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

1 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rixon, L., Baron, J., McGale, N., Lorencatto, F., Francis, J., & Davies, A.
Affiliations
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Rixon, Lorna
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2016-11-18
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
663-663
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2553147471
Cited by
117
References
107
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
City University London (GB)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
fidelity, health behavior change interventions, process evaluation, participant engagement, intervention attendance, intervention satisfaction, reliability and validity
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Health Education, Health Services Research, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Health 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