. 2017 Aug 1;22(4):872–903. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12260

Table 1.

A summary of the measures used to monitor fidelity of delivery and engagement

	Fidelity (n = 44; 100%)	Engagement (n = 46, 100%)
What was measured?	Delivery of intervention components compared with intervention protocol (n = 20; 45.5%)^{1,5,6,10,11,16,20 (specifically BCTs) 26,28,29,30,31,35,39,40,51,55,59,60,66} Motivational interviewing adherence/fidelity/infidelity (n = 6; 13.6%)^{7,22,57,58,63,64} Dose delivered and fidelity (n = 6; 13.6%)^{2,14,23,36,42,49} Fidelity of delivery but unclear which aspect as results not reported (n = 2; 4.5%)^19,21 Dose of intervention components (n = 2; 4.5%)^24,62 Competence and success delivering behaviour change strategies (n = 1; 2.3%)⁴¹ Treatment integrity/demonstration of skills (n = 1; 2.3%)²⁵ Extent to which environmental changes made (n = 1; 2.3%)⁵⁰ Consistency and quality of use of innovation (n = 1; 2.3%)³³ Motivational interviewing fidelity, dose, and context (n = 1; 2.3%)³⁸ ‘Quality of counselling’ – use of skills and therapeutic alliance (n = 1; 2.3%)²⁷ Number of times skills were modelled and telephone fidelity (n = 1; 2.3%)³⁴ Clinician competence/demonstration of intervention method (n = 1; 2.3%)⁴⁸	Adherence to target behaviour (n = 7; 15.2%)^{3,4(+Skills),13,15,19,37,43} Attendance (n = 7; 15.2%)^{9,40,44,46,54,56,65} Understanding (receipt) and use of intervention skills (enactment) (n = 3; 6.5%)^6,35,48 Understanding and engagement (n = 2; 4.34%)^42,51 Compliance and attendance (n = 2; 4.34%)^18,47 Adherence to target behaviour and attendance (n = 2; 4.34%)^17,52 Completion of study visits (n = 2; 4.34%)^21,41, Intervention enactment – use of BCTs (n = 1; 2.17%)²⁵ Receipt, enactment, homework compliance, and attendance (n = 1; 2.17%)³⁹ Dose received/exposure – assignments completed (n = 1; 2.17%)² Dose received – intervention receipt and compliance (n = 1; 2.17%)¹⁴ How much learned/adopted, helpfulness, and current use (n = 1; 2.17%)¹¹ Effectiveness of intervention – trying practices, participating, influencing practice, comprehension, future participation (n = 1; 2.17%)¹⁶ Adoption of intervention and maintenance (n = 1; 2.17%)²⁹ Dose of intervention received (n = 1; 2.17%)³⁶ Receipt and reaching goals (n = 1; 2.17%)³⁰ Participation in activities, dose, and checklist completion (n = 1; 2.17%)⁵ Activity adherence, sessions delivered, telephone contact (n = 1; 2.17%)¹² Adherence to target behaviour and diary (n = 1; 2.17%)³⁸ Adherence to target behaviour, attendance, and diary (n = 1; 2.17%)⁵³ Exposure to intervention – attendance/receipt of calls (n = 1; 2.17%)³² Uptake of intervention – attendance/use of modules (n = 1; 2.17%)⁸ Attendance, reading materials, usefulness, meeting goals (n = 1; 2.17%)⁶¹ Attendance and completion of diaries (n = 1; 2.17%)⁶⁴ Completion of diaries (n = 1; 2.17%)¹⁰ Completion of home assignments, self‐monitoring, attendance (n = 1; 2.17%)²³ Homework adherence and commitment (n = 1; 2.17%)²⁴ Completion of homework, receipt of information, telephone calls (n = 1; 2.17%)⁵⁵
Type of measures used	Observational measures (n = 17; 38.6%): Video (n = 2; 4.55%)^27,51 Audio (n = 13; 29.5%)^{7,19,21,22,38,40,45,48,55,57,58,63,64} Non‐specific (n = 2; 4.55%)^1,34 Self‐report measures (n = 15; 34%): Provider (hand) (n = 7; 15.9%)^{6,10,14,16,41,42,59} Provider (computer) (n = 3; 6.8%)^24,23,36 Participant (hand) (n = 2; 4.6%)^28,11 Participant (computer) (n = 1; 2.3%)⁴⁹ Non‐specific (computer) (n = 2; 4.6%)^62,66 Multiple measures (n = 11; 25%) Provider and participant self‐report (n = 4; 9%)^2,30,35,50 Audio and provider self‐report (n = 3; 6.8%)^20,26,39 Video + provider self‐report (n = 1; 2.3%)⁵ Observation and exercise log (participant) (n = 1; 2.3%)³¹ Direct observation and rating (n = 1; 2.3%)²⁹ Participant self‐report and patient files (n = 1; 2.3%)⁶⁰ Other measures (n = 1; 2.3%) Quantitative rated interviews with providers (n = 1; 2.3%)³³	Self‐report measures (n = 18; 39.1%) Participant (n = 14; 30.4%)^{11,13,14(R),16,19,25,30,35,36,37,38,43,48,55} Provider (n = 4; 8.7%)^10,41,42,51 Multiple measures (n = 17; 37%): Provider and participant self‐report (n = 3; 6.5%)^2,3,5 Participant self‐report and attendance records (n = 3; 6.5%)^18,23,32 Provider and participant self‐report and attendance records (n = 2; 4.3%)^17,47 Attendance records and behaviour monitoring (n = 2; 4.3%)^53,64 Direct observation and provider and participant self‐report (n = 1; 2.2%)¹² Non‐specific observation and provider self‐report (n = 1; 2.2%)⁴ Provider self‐report, attendance records, homework review (n = 1; 2.2%)^39(R&E) Participant self‐report and verbal verification (n = 1; 2.2%)^6(R&E) Provider self‐report and homework review (n = 1; 2.2%)²⁴ Participant self‐report and objective verification (n = 1; 2.2%)¹⁵ Provider self‐report and attendance records (n = 1; 2.2%)⁵² Intervention records (n = 11; 24%) Attendance/referral records (n = 10; 21.7%)^{8,9,29,40,44,46,54,56,61,65} Study completion (n = 1; 2.2%)²¹
More details about measures	Who completed the measures? Researcher (n = 18; 40.9%)^{1,7,21,22,27,29,33,34,38,40,45,48,51,55,57,58,63,64} Provider (n = 11; 25%)^{6,10,14,16,19,23,24,36,41,42,59} Provider and participant (n = 4; 9.1%)^2,30,35,50 Provider and researcher (n = 4; 9.1%)^5,20,26,39 Participant (n = 3; 6.8%),^11,28,49 Participant and researcher (n = 2; 4.55)^31,60 Not specified (n = 2; 4.55)^62,66	Who completed the measures? Participant (n = 14; 30.4%)^{11,13,14(R),16,19,25,30,35,36,37,38,43,48,55} Researcher (n = 13; 28.3%)^{8,9,21,29,40,44,46,53,54,56,61,64,65} Participant and researcher (n = 6; 13%)^{6(R&E),15,18,23,24,32} Provider (n = 4; 8.7%)^10,41,42,51 Provider and participant (n = 3; 6.5%)^2,3,5 Provider and researcher (n = 3; 6.5%)^4,39(R&E),52 Provider, participant, researcher (n = 3; 6.5%)^12,17,47
	Development of measures Not specified (n = 31; 70.45%)^{1,5,11,14,16,19,23,24,27,28,29,30,31,33,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,48,49,50,51,55,59,60,62,64,66} Used a previously developed measure (n = 8; 18.18%) Motivational interviewing treatment integrity code (Moyers et al., 2003 as cited in^57,58, 2007, as cited in²²): (n = 3; 6.8%)^22,57,58 MITI + Motivational interviewing skill code (Miller et al., 2003) (n = 2; 4.5%)^7,63 Behaviour Change Counselling Index (Lane et al., 2005) (n = 2; 4.5%)^21,45 Flanders Interaction Analysis Technique (n = 1; 2.3%)³⁴ Developed own measure: (n = 5; 11.36)^2,6,10,20,26	Development of measures Not specified: (n = 42; 91.3%)^{2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,24,25,29,30,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,44,46,47,48,53,54,55,56,61,64,65} Used previously developed measure (n = 3; 6.5%) DASH adherence index: (n = 1; 2.17%)⁴³ Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation scale (n = 1; 2.17%)^{51 (engagement,understanding not specified)} Participation scale and the participation scale and recovery practice scale (n = 1; 2.17%)⁵² Developed own measure and used measures that were previously developed: (n = 1; 2.2%)⁴
	Responses on measures Not specified (n = 23; 52.3%)^{1,6,7,10,16,19,21,22,23,24,31,34,35,38,39,40,42,48,49,51,62,64,66} Rating scales (n = 12; 27.3%) 3‐point scale (completely covered, partially covered, not covered) (n = 1; 2.27%)⁵ 4‐point scale (n = 1; 2.27%)⁴⁵ Two 4‐point rating scales (unsatisfactory, doubtful, satisfactory, good’, ‘not at all, hardly, slightly, considerably, strongly’ + Not applicable (n = 1; 2.27%)²⁷ Two 4‐point scales (‘Excellent, good, fair, poor’ and ‘used well, used well but not often, used well and not well, not used or not used well) (n = 1; 2.27%)²⁹ 5‐point scale (Totally disagree – totally agree) (n = 1; 2.27%)² 5‐point scale (‘Never, most of the time, often, always, do not remember’) (n = 1; 2.27%)³⁰ 5‐point scale (‘Non‐use, low compliance, compliant use, high compliance, committed use’) (n = 1; 2.27%)³³ 7‐point scale (low (1), high (7)) + behaviour counts (n = 2; 4.5%)^57,58 7‐point scale (n = 1; 2.27%)⁶³ Eight point scales (no adherence – optimal adherence and no competence – excellent competency) (n = 1; 2.27%)⁵⁵ 10‐point scale (very bad to very good) + three point scale (yes/partly/not implemented) (n = 1; 2.27%)¹⁴ Dichotomous scale: (n = 8; 18.2%) Yes/no (n = 5; 11.4%)^{11,28,41,59,60} Applied(1)/not applied (0) or completed (1)/not completed (0) (n = 2; 4.5%)^20,26 Completed)(1)/not completed(0) (n = 1; 2.27%)³⁶ Rating scale and dichotomous scale (n = 1; 2.3%) 4‐point scale (rarely (1), sometimes (2), often (3), most/all of the time (4) and yes (1)/no (0) (n = 1; 2.3%)⁵⁰	Responses on measures Not specified: (n = 29; 63%)^{2,3,5,6,8,9,12,13,15,17,18,19,21,23,29,30,32,35,37,38,40,42,44,48,53,54,56,61,65} Rating scales (n = 12; 26.1%) 3‐point scale adherence (poor, fair, excellent), others not specified (n = 1; 2.17%)⁴ 3‐point scales: perceived helpfulness (0 not at all, 2 very much) + currently using (0 not at all, 2 very much) (n = 1; 2.17%)¹¹ 3‐point scale (0 = effectively non‐compliant, 0.5 = uncertain or partly compliant, 1 = compliant) (n = 1; 2.17%)⁴⁷ 3‐point scales (yes/no/don't know and ‘very helpful, neither helpful nor unhelpful, very unhelpful’), four point scale (most, all, some, none), (n = 1; 2.17%)³⁶ 3‐point scale (Better than target range [>1], 0–1 within target range, worse than target range [<0]): (n = 1; 2.17%)⁴³ 3‐point Likert scale (very low to very high) (n = 1; 2.17%)⁵² 3‐point scale (n = 1; 2.17%)⁶⁴ 4‐point scale (dissatisfied to very satisfied) (n = 1; 2.17%)⁵⁵ 4‐point scale (1 missed most–4 missed none) and 10 point scale (1 none, 10 complete) (n = 1; 2.17%)²⁴ 5‐point Likert scale: (n = 1; 2.17%)¹⁶ 6‐point Likert scale (1 no engagement, 6 excellent engagement) and 3‐point scale (1 minimal understanding, some understanding, good understanding) (n = 1; 2.17%)⁵¹ 7‐point scale (Never, <3 months ago, 4–6 months ago, 7–9 months ago, 10–12 months ago, 1–2 years ago, <2 years ago) (n = 1; 2.17%)⁴⁶ Dichotomous scales (n = 3; 6.5%) Yes/no: (n = 3; 6.5%)^10,25,41 Rating scale + dichotomous scale (n = 2; 4.4%) 3‐point scale (yes/no/don't know) and dichotomous scale (yes/no): (n = 1; 2.17%)¹⁴ 3‐point scale (0 not at all, fully) – measure receipt. 5‐point scale (1 not at all, 5 extremely) measure willingness, interest and supportiveness and dichotomous scale (attempted, not attempted) – to measure enactment (n = 1; 2.17%)³⁹
Sample	How many participants were sampled? Not specified (n = 23; 52.3%)^{1,2,5,7,11,14,16,19,21,22,23,28,34,35,41,42,49,50,57,58,60,62,66} Subsample (n = 16; 36.4%)^{10 26,27,29,30,31,33,36,38,40,45,48,51,55,63,64} Reported number of sessions sampled (n = 4; 9%)^26,27,31,63 Reported number of clinicians/sites data was sampled from (n = 4; 9%)^10,29,30,33 Reported the percentage of sessions sampled (n = 6; 13.6%)^{36,38,40,45,51,55} Reported sampling some but not all but did not specify how many (n = 2; 4.5%)^48,64 All (n = 5; 11.4%):^{6,20,24,39,59}	How many participants were sampled? Not specified (n = 45; 97.8%)^{2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,24,25,29,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,48,51,52,53,54,55,56,61,64,65} Subsample (n = 1; 2.2%)³⁰ Reported sampling a number of participants (n = 1; 2.2%)³⁰
	How were participants sampled? Not specified: (n = 25; 56.8%)^{1,2,5,7,11,14,16,19,21,22,23,28,29,30,34,35,36,38,41,42,49,50,60,62,66} Random (n = 8; 18.2%)^{31,40,51,55,57 (random segment),58 (random segment),63,64,} N/A (sampled all: n = 5; 11.4%)^{6,20,24,39,59} Purposive: (n = 3; 6.8%)^{26,27 (previously defined days),33} Self‐selected (n = 1; 2.3%)⁴⁸ Opportunity: (n = 1; 2.3%)⁴⁵ Stratified: (n = 1; 2.3%)¹⁰	How were participants sampled? Not specified: (n = 46; 100%)^{2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,24,25,29,30,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,48,51,52,53,54,55,56,61,64,65}
	Which conditions were participants sampled from? Not specified (likely intervention only) : (n = 38; 86.4%)^{1,5,6,10,11,14,16,19,20,21,22,23,26,27,28,29,30,31,33,34,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,45,49,55,57,58,59,60,62,63,64,66} All: (Explicitly reported) (n = 4; 9.1%)^48,51,7,50 Intervention(s) (n = 2; 4.5%)^2,24	Which conditions were participants sampled from? ☐ Not specified (likely intervention only): (n = 35; 76.1%)^{5,6,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,19,21,23,29,30,32,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,48,52,54,55,56,61,64,65} ☐ All (explicitly reported): (n = 9; 19.6%)^{2,3,18,35,4,13,17,51,53} ☐ Intervention(s) (n = 2; 4.3%)^24,25
Analysis method	Descriptive statistics (n = 29; 65.9%)^{1,5,6,10,11,14,16,22,23,27,28,29,30,31,33,34,36,38,39,41,42,45,49,55,57,58,59,60,66} Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques (n = 11; 25%)^{2,7,20,24,26,35,48,50,51 (inferential not specified)} ^62,63 Not reported (n = 4; 9.1%)^19,21,40,64	Descriptive statistics (n = 37; 80.4%)^{3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,18,19,21,23,29,30,32,35,36,37,38,40,41,42,44,46,47,48,52,54,55,56,61,64,65} Descriptive statistics and Inferential statistical techniques (n = 9; 19.6%)^{2,13 (inferential stats not specified) 17,24,25,39,43,51,53}
Framework/model	Framework not specified/mentioned (n = 53; 80.3%)^{1,3,4,5,7,8,9,11 (mentioned in discussion),12,13,15,16,17,18,19,21,23,24,25,27,28,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,40,41,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,62,63,64,65,66} Used a framework (n = 13; 19.7%)^{2,6,10,14,20,22,26,29,31,39,42,50,60} Steckler and Linnan's (2002, as cited in^2,14,42,50) framework (n = 4; 6.1%)^{2,14 (adapted version),42,50} NIH Treatment fidelity model/NIH Behaviour change Consortium framework (Bellg et al., 2004) (n = 6; 9.1%)^{6,10,20,22,26,39} RE‐AIM framework (n = 1; 1.5%)²⁹ Resnick et al. (2005) (n = 1; 1.5%)³¹ Baranowski & Stables (2000): (n = 2; 3.3%)^42,50 Saunders et al. (2005) (n = 1; 1.5%)⁴² Hasson (2010) based on Carroll et al. (2007) (n = 1; 1.5%)⁶⁰
Definitions	Provided definitions (n = 18; 27.3%)^{2,5,6,12,14,16,17,20,22,23,25,31,33,38,39,41,42,50} Fidelity (constructs that fit into fidelity): (n = 15; 22.7%)^{2,5,6,14,16,20,22,23,31,33,38,39,41,42,50} Engagement (constructs that fit under engagement): (n = 9; 13.6%)^{2,6,12,14,17,23,25,39,42} Did not provide definitions (n = 48; 72.7%)^{1,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13,15,18,19,21,24,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,35,36,37,40,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66}

(R) = receipt; (E) = enactment; (R&E) = receipt and enactment.