Review Article
How Has Intervention Fidelity Been Assessed in Smoking Cessation Interventions? A Systematic Review
Table 4
Table showing overall fidelity in studies, ranked from low to high fidelity.
| | Study (author/year) | Overall (% of components present out of all possible applicable components; 43 max) |
| 6 | Buhse 2013 | 86.00% | 3 | Bock 2014 | 83.70% | 20 | Gilbert 2017 | 79.07% | 22 | Gould 2018 | 79.07% | 1 | Asfar 2018 | 72.09% | 2 | Blaakman 2013 | 69.80% | 8 | Catley 2012 | 69.80% | 21 | Goenka 2010 | 69.80% | 26 | Horn 2008 | 69.80% | 17 | Duffy 2015 USCD | 67.40% | 30 | Lycett 2010 | 67.40% | 44 | Taskila 2012 | 67.40% | 45 | Taylor 2014 | 67.40% | 47 | Thyrian Freyer 2010 | 67.40% | 10 | Dahne 2018 | 65.12% | 43 | Spanou 2010 | 62.80% | 28 | Kealey 2009 | 60.50% | 34 | Mujika 2014 | 60.50% | 35 | Park 2006 | 60.50% | 54 | White 2017 | 60.47% | 46 | Thyrian Freyer 2007 | 58.10% | 31 | Matthews 2018 | 55.81% | 36 | Parker 2007 | 55.80% | 37 | Pbert Fletcher 2006 | 55.80% | 48 | Toll 2010 | 55.80% | 14 | Duffy 2015 NYU | 51.20% | 32 | McCambridge 2008 | 51.20% | 38 | Pbert, Osganian 2006 | 51.20% | 42 | Sloboda 2009 | 51.20% | 33 | McClure 2017 | 51.16% | 5 | Broekhuizen 2010 | 48.80% | 12 | Duffy 2015 KU | 48.80% | 50 | Varvel 2010 | 48.80% | 55 | Windsor 2014 | 48.80% | 9 | Croghan 2012 | 46.50% | 25 | Harter 2015 | 44.20% | 53 | Webb 2007 | 44.20% | 16 | Duffy 2015 UMMC | 41.90% | 18 | El-Mohandes 2013 | 41.90% | 40 | Schlam 2018 | 37.21% | 49 | Unrod 2016 | 37.21% | 51 | Wang 2017 | 37.21% | 52 | Wang 2018 | 37.21% | 11 | Duffy 2015 KPCHR | 34.90% | 39 | Richter 2016 | 34.90% | 41 | Schulz 2014 | 34.90% | 4 | Bonevski 2016 | 34.88% | 19 | Escoffery 2016 | 32.60% | 23 | Haas 2015 | 30.20% | 29 | Leung 2017 | 27.91% | 27 | Johnson 2009 | 27.90% | 13 | Duffy 2015 MGH | 23.30% | 7 | Busch 2015 | 20.90% | 24 | Halcomb 2015 | 20.90% | 15 | Duffy 2015 UAB | 14.00% | | Average % (range) | 51.33% (14-83) |
|
|