Table 1.

Proportion (%) of papers from past systematic reviews addressing receipt as defined in the BCC framework

Methods for addressing fidelity of intervention receipt	Borelli et al. [10]	Johnson-Kozlow et al. [15]	McArthur et al. [16]	Garbacz et al. [14]	Preyde et al. [17]
1. Assessed participants’ understanding of the intervention	40	52	0	69	30
2. Included a strategy to improve participants’ understanding	52	79	0	66	61
3. Assessed participants’ ability to perform the intervention skills	50	59	50	65	39
4. Included a strategy to improve participants’ performance of intervention skills	53	69	50	66	64
Denominator for proportions presented	325–332a	29	10	65	28

Note: ^aIn Borelli et al. [10], the denominator for the proportions provided is the total number of papers for which the method used to address intervention receipt was considered appropriate/applicable by the reviewers, rather than the total number of papers included in the review, i.e. 342. This was 332 for method 1,331 for method 2,326 for method 3, and 325 for method 4