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)