Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28762607›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of health psychology2017

Measures of fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, complex, face-to-face health behaviour change interventions: A systematic review of measure quality.

Holly Walton, Aimee Spector, Ildiko Tombor, Susan Michie

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of health psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06076993 (Effectiveness of the BodyKind School-based Body Image Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 95 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
48.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06076993 phase1 / phase2unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of the BodyKind School-based Body Image Intervention: a Cluster Randomised Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College DublinRan2023 to 2024Enrolled600ConditionsBody ImageArmsBodyKind programme
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 237 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Holly WaltonDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
Aimee SpectorDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
Ildiko TomborDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, UK.
Susan MichieDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
University College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 22962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUnderstanding the effectiveness of complex, face-to-face health behaviour change interventions requires high-quality measures to assess fidelity of delivery and engagement. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the types of measures used to monitor fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, complex, face-to-face health behaviour change interventions and (2) describe the reporting of psychometric and implementation qualities.

methodsElectronic databases were searched, systematic reviews and reference lists were hand-searched, and 21 experts were contacted to identify articles. Studies that quantitatively measured fidelity of delivery of, and/or engagement with, a complex, face-to-face health behaviour change intervention for adults were included. Data on interventions, measures, and psychometric and implementation qualities were extracted and synthesized using narrative analysis.

resultsSixty-six studies were included: 24 measured both fidelity of delivery and engagement, 20 measured fidelity of delivery, and 22 measured engagement. Measures of fidelity of delivery included observation (n = 17; 38.6%), self-report (n = 15; 34%), quantitatively rated qualitative interviews (n = 1; 2.3%), or multiple measures (n = 11; 25%). Measures of engagement included self-report (n = 18; 39.1%), intervention records (n = 11; 24%), or multiple measures (n = 17; 37%). Fifty-one studies (77%) reported at least one psychometric or implementation quality; 49 studies (74.2%) reported at least one psychometric quality, and 17 studies (25.8%) reported at least one implementation quality.

conclusionFewer than half of the reviewed studies measured both fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with complex, face-to-face health behaviour change interventions. More studies reported psychometric qualities than implementation qualities. Interpretation of intervention outcomes from fidelity of delivery and engagement measurements may be limited due to a lack of reporting of psychometric and implementation qualities. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Evidence of fidelity and engagement is needed to understand effectiveness of complex interventions Evidence of fidelity and engagement are rarely reported High-quality measures are needed to measure fidelity and engagement What does this study add? Evidence that indicators of quality of measures are reported in some studies Evidence that psychometric qualities are reported more frequently than implementation qualities A recommendation for intervention evaluations to report indicators of quality of fidelity and engagement measures.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorRisk Reduction BehaviorAdultHealth PromotionHumansInterviews as TopicMaleObservationPsychometricsSelf Reportbehaviour changecomplex interventionengagementfidelity of deliveryhealthimplementationmeasurespsychometricquality

Identifiers

PMID28762607
PMCPMC5655766
OpenAlexW2740999512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.