↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of fidelity in individual level behaviour change interventions promoting physical activity among adults: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of fidelity in individual level behaviour change interventions promoting physical activity among adults: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4778-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey D. Lambert, Colin J. Greaves, Paul Farrand, Rosina Cross, Anne M. Haase, Adrian H. Taylor

Abstract

Behaviour change interventions that promote physical activity have major implications for health and well-being. Measuring intervention fidelity is crucial in determining the extent to which an intervention is delivered as intended, therefore increasing scientific confidence about effectiveness. However, we lack a clear overview of how well intervention fidelity is typically assessed in physical activity trials. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify peer - reviewed physical activity promotion trials that explicitly measured intervention fidelity. Methods used to assess intervention fidelity were categorised, narratively synthesised and critiqued using assessment criteria from NIH Behaviour Change Consortium (BCC) Treatment Fidelity Framework (design, training, delivery, receipt and enactment). Twenty eight articles reporting of twenty one studies used a wide variety of approaches to measure intervention fidelity. Delivery was the most common domain of intervention fidelity measured. Approaches used to measure fidelity across all domains varied from researcher coding of observational data (using checklists or scales) to participant self-report measures. There was considerable heterogeneity of methodological approaches to data collection with respect to instruments used, attention to psychometric properties, rater-selection, observational method and sampling strategies. In the field of physical activity interventions, fidelity measurement is highly heterogeneous both conceptually and methodologically. Clearer articulation of the core domains of intervention fidelity, along with appropriate measurement approaches for each domain are needed to improve the methodological quality of fidelity assessment in physical activity interventions. Recommendations are provided on how this situation can be improved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 6%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 35 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 15%
Psychology 22 14%
Sports and Recreations 11 7%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 51 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,802,324
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,096
of 17,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,825
of 332,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#24
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.