This scoping review aimed to map fidelity-related frameworks used to design, implement, and evaluate health interventions from 2015 to 2025. Despite the growing recognition of fidelity as critical for intervention effectiveness, no prior synthesis had examined which conceptual, implementation, or adaptation frameworks are employed or how they differ. A systematic search across five databases identified 520 eligible studies. Seventeen frameworks were categorized: six conceptual, seven implementation, and four adaptation-focused. Implementation frameworks predominated (59%), led by Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Conceptual Framework of Implementation Fidelity was most used among conceptual models, while adaptation-oriented frameworks such as UK Medical Research Council guidance, integrated-PARIHS, and FRAME accounted for 19% of studies. Comparative analysis revealed key gaps—no framework adequately integrated fidelity, adaptation, context, and sustainability. This review offers a structured comparison and decision aid for selecting frameworks aligned with implementation goals. It calls for integrative models that support fidelity monitoring while enabling context-appropriate adaptation across diverse health settings.
AaronsG. A.HurlburtM.HorwitzS. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7
2.
AnM.DusingS. C.HarbourneR. T.SheridanS. M.ConsortiumS.-P. (2020). What really works in intervention? Using fidelity measures to support optimal outcomes. Physical Therapy, 100(5), 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa006
3.
BellgA. J.BorrelliB.ResnickB.HechtJ.MinicucciD. S.OryM.CzajkowskiS. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium. Health Psychology, 23(5), 443. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443
4.
BergströmA.EhrenbergA.EldhA. C.GrahamI. D.GustafssonK.HarveyG.WallinL. (2020). The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice—a citation analysis of the literature. Implementation Science, 15(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01003-0
5.
BorrelliB. (2011). The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 71(Suppl. 1), S52–S63.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00233.x
6.
CarrollC.PattersonM.WoodS.BoothA.RickJ.BalainS. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40
7.
Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366173
8.
CraigP.DieppeP.MacintyreS.MichieS.NazarethI.PetticrewM. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. bmj, 337. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
9.
DamschroderL. J.AronD. C.KeithR. E.KirshS. R.AlexanderJ. A.LoweryJ. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
10.
DaneA. V.SchneiderB. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3
11.
DusenburyL.BranniganR.FalcoM.HansenW. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/18.2.237
12.
FeelyM.SeayK. D.LanierP.AuslanderW.KohlP. L. (2018). Measuring fidelity in research studies: A field guide to developing a comprehensive fidelity measurement system. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-017-0512-6
13.
GlasgowR. E.McKayH. G.PietteJ. D.ReynoldsK. D. (2001). The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: What can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management?Patient Education and Counseling, 44(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00186-5
14.
GreshamF. M.GansleK. A.NoellG. H. (1993). Treatment integrity in applied behavior analysis with children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(2), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-257
15.
HarveyG.KitsonA. (2015). Implementing evidence-based practice in healthcare. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203557334.
16.
HassonH. (2010). Systematic evaluation of implementation fidelity of complex interventions in health and social care. Implementation Science, 5(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-67
17.
HoffmannT. C.GlasziouP. P.BoutronI.MilneR.PereraR., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., Lamb,S. E., Dixon-Woods, M., McCulloch, P., Wyatt, J. C., Chan, A. W.MoherD.MichieS. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348, g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687
18.
HoltropJ. S.EstabrooksP. A.GaglioB.HardenS. M.KesslerR. S.KingD. K.GlasgowR. E. (2021). Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: Clarifications and resources. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e126. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.789
19.
HunterS. C.KimB.MudgeA.HallL.YoungA.McRaeP.KitsonA. L. (2020). Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: A co-designed case study of four multi-site implementation projects. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 573. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05354-8
20.
Kitson, A., Harvey, G., & McCormack, B. (1998). Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. BMJ Quality & Safety, 7(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.7.3.149
21.
KilbourneA. M.NeumannM. S.PincusH. A.BauerM. S.StallR. (2007). Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: Application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implementation Science, 2(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-42
22.
KirkM. A.HainesE. R.RokoskeF. S.PowellB. J.WeinbergerM.HansonL. C.BirkenS. A. (2021). A case study of a theory-based method for identifying and reporting core functions and forms of evidence-based interventions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz178
LemireC.RousseauM.DionneC. (2023). A comparison of fidelity implementation frameworks used in the field of early intervention. American Journal of Evaluation, 44(2), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140211008978
25.
McGee, D., Lorencatto, F., Matvienko-Sikar, K., & Toomey, E. (2018). Surveying knowledge, practice and attitudes towards intervention fidelity within trials of complex healthcare interventions. Trials, 19(1), 504. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2838-6
26.
Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., Moore, L., O'Cathain, A., Tinati, T., Wight, D., & Baird, J. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. bmj, 350. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258
NilsenP.BernhardssonS. (2019). Context matters in implementation science: A scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3
29.
O’DonnellC. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793
30.
O’SheaO.McCormickR.BradleyJ. M.O’NeillB. (2016). Fidelity review: A scoping review of the methods used to evaluate treatment fidelity in behavioural change interventions. Physical Therapy Reviews, 21(3–6), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2016.1261237
31.
PáezA.NunanD.McCullochP.BeardD. (2025). The influence of intervention fidelity on treatment effect estimates in clinical trials of complex interventions: A meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 177, 111610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111610
32.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., , Shamseer, L.., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
33.
ProctorE.SilmereH.RaghavanR.HovmandP.AaronsG.BungerA.HensleyM. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
34.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.FreemanH. E. (2003).Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage publications..
35.
Sarah Ibrahim, M. N. (2016). Intervention fidelity in interventions: An integrative literature review. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 30(3), 258. https://doi.org/10.1891/1541-6577.30.3.258
36.
Sanetti, L. M. H., Charbonneau, S., Knight, A., Cochrane, W. S., Kulcyk, M. C., & Kraus, K. E. (2020). Treatment fidelity reporting in intervention outcome studies in the school psychology literature from 2009 to 2016. Psychology in the Schools, 57(6), 901–922.https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22364
37.
SkivingtonK.MatthewsL.SimpsonS. A.CraigP.BairdJ.BlazebyJ. M. Boyd, K. A., Craig, N., French, D. P., McIntosh, E.,Petticrew, M., Rycroft-Malone, J., White, M.MooreL. (2021). A newframework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update ofMedical Research Council guidance. BMJ 374, n2061.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2061
38.
SprangeK.MountainG.CraigC. (2021). Evaluation of intervention fidelity of a complex psychosocial intervention lifestyle matters: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 11(4), article e043478. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043478
39.
TabakR. G.KhoongE. C.ChambersD. A.BrownsonR. C. (2012). Bridging research and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024
40.
ToomeyΕ.ToD.NathanN.ByrneM.LorencattoF.Matvienko-SikarK., McCleary, N., ColquhounH. (2026). Addressing fidelity within complex health behaviour change interventions: A protocol of a scoping review of intervention fidelity frameworks and models. Health Phychology Review, 20(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2025.2534001
41.
ToomeyE.HardemanW.HankonenN.ByrneM.McSharryJ.Matvienko-SikarK.LorencattoF. (2020). Focusing on fidelity: Narrative review and recommendations for improving intervention fidelity within trials of health behaviour change interventions. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 8(1), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2020.1738935
42.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
43.
Wiltsey StirmanS.BaumannA. A.MillerC. J. (2019). The FRAME: An expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implementation Science, 14(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y
