| Literature DB >> 28187740 |
Bo Wang1, Bonita Stanton2, Lynette Deveaux3, Sonja Lunn3, Glenda Rolle4, Richard Adderley3, Maxwell Poitier3, Veronica Koci5, Sharon Marshall6, Perry Gomez3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intervention effects observed in efficacy trials are rarely replicated when the interventions are broadly disseminated, underscoring the need for more information about factors influencing real-life implementation and program impact. Using data from the ongoing national implementation of an evidence-based HIV prevention program [Focus on Youth in The Caribbean (FOYC)] in The Bahamas, this study examines factors influencing teachers' patterns of implementation, the impact of teachers' initial implementation of FOYC, and subsequent delivery of the booster sessions on students' outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Booster session; HIV prevention; Pattern of implementation; Program evaluation; Program outcomes; Program provider
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28187740 PMCID: PMC5303204 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0539-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Implement Sci ISSN: 1748-5908 Impact factor: 7.327
Fig. 3Revised structural model showing relationships among factors that influence fidelity of implementation and long-term student outcomes (including HIV/AIDS knowledge, condom use skills and intention to use protection). (Model fit: CFI = 0.930; TLI = 0.907; RMSEA = 0.058; Chi-Square/DF = 1.67). R 2 value for grade 6, grade 7, and grade 8 student outcomes is 0.30, 0.41, and 0.52, respectively
Fig. 1Change in HIV/AIDS knowledge, reproductive health skills, self-efficacy, and intention to use protection from baseline to 24-month follow-up, stratified by grade 6 teacher implementation cluster
Associations grade 8 teachers’ implementation of booster sessions with student outcomes
| Variables | Number of activities in the booster session completed |
| Post-hoc comparisonb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0~1 activities | 2~3 activities | 4~5 activities | |||
| Sample size ( | 296 | 1104 | 1705 | ||
| HIV/AIDS knowledge (range 0~15 points) | 10.45(2.39) | 10.65(2.19) | 10.85(2.12) | 5.72** | (1,3) (2,3) |
| High implementation group | 10.85(1.99) | 10.70(2.21) | 10.87(2.08) | 0.71 | |
| Moderate implementation group | 10.46(2.54) | 10.73(2.09) | 10.87(2.14) | 2.37 | |
| Low implementation group | 9.55(2.40) | 10.34(2.49) | 10.78(2.04) | 5.41** | (1,3) |
| Preventive reproductive health skills (range 0~6 points) | 4.34(1.13) | 4.37(1.15) | 4.59(1.07) | 16.95*** | (1,3) (2,3) |
| High implementation group | 4.37(1.11) | 4.42(1.15) | 4.62(1.06) | 4.88** | (2,3) |
| Moderate implementation group | 4.39(1.11) | 4.39(1.14) | 4.56(1.09) | 4.67* | (2,3) |
| Low implementation group | 4.22(1.24) | 4.34(1.22) | 4.57(1.07) | 3.82* | (1,3) (2,3) |
| Self-efficacy (range 0~3 points) | 1.82(1.12) | 1.95(1.12) | 2.05(1.08) | 6.43*** | (1,3) |
| High implementation group | 1.94(1.06) | 1.95(1.13) | 2.09(1.06) | 2.16 | |
| Moderate implementation group | 1.85(1.10) | 1.96(1.09) | 2.01(1.09) | 1.44 | |
| Low implementation group | 1.39(1.30) | 1.94(1.18) | 2.01(1.11) | 4.88** | (1,2) (1,3) |
| Intention to use protection (range 1~5 points) | 3.81(1.63) | 4.21(1.46) | 4.17(1.47) | 8.58** | (1,2) (1,3) |
| High implementation group | 4.12(1.49) | 4.21(1.47) | 4.07(1.55) | 0.90 | |
| Moderate implementation group | 3.56(1.74) | 4.18(1.47) | 4.26(1.40) | 13.41*** | (1,2) (1,3) |
| Low implementation group | 3.97(1.46) | 4.26(1.45) | 4.10(1.52) | 0.80 | |
*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01
***P < 0.001
a151 youth who did not identify their grade 8 teachers were excluded
bNumbers in parentheses indicating significantly different groups based on post-hoc analysis
Mixed-effects models assessing the effects of different combinations of grade 6 teacher’s implementation of FOYC intervention and grade 7 and 8 teacher’s delivery of booster session on student outcomes
| Variables | Estimated models | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIV/AIDS knowledge | Preventive reproductive health skills | Self-efficacy | Intention to use protection | |||||||||
|
| SE |
| β | SE |
|
| SE |
| β | SE |
| |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Intercept | 9.565 | 0.384 | 24.91*** | 4.237 | 0.189 | 22.43*** | 1.818 | 0.173 | 10.51*** | 4.417 | 0.259 | 17.04*** |
| Age | 0.014 | 0.024 | 0.59 | −0.011 | 0.013 | −0.84 | −0.015 | 0.013 | −1.22 | −0.057 | 0.017 | −3.34** |
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | 0.014 | 0.079 | 0.17 | 0.018 | 0.042 | 0.44 | 0.029 | 0.42 | 0.70 | 0.083 | 0.058 | 1.44 |
| Female (ref) | ||||||||||||
| Baseline student outcome | 0.027 | 0.016 | 1.70# | 0.029 | 0.016 | 1.76# | 0.017 | 0.020 | 0.84 | 0.036 | 0.017 | 2.10* |
| Nine combinations of grade 6 implementation of FOYC and grade 7 and grade 8 booster delivery | ||||||||||||
| High implementation of FOYC and good delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 0.984 | 0.325 | 3.03** | 0.380 | 0.155 | 2.46* | 0.363 | 0.134 | 2.70** | 0.002 | 0.228 | 0.01 |
| High implementation of FOYC and fair delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 0.841 | 0.294 | 2.86** | 0.319 | 0.139 | 2.30* | 0.362 | 0.122 | 2.98** | 0.186 | 0.207 | 0.90 |
| High implementation of FOYC and poor delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 0.714 | 0.342 | 2.09* | 0.132 | 0.164 | 0.80 | 0.213 | 0.146 | 1.46 | 0.228 | 0.241 | 0.95 |
| Moderate implementation of FOYC and good delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 0.772 | 0.317 | 2.44* | 0.416 | 0.153 | 2.71** | 0.311 | 0.137 | 2.27* | 0.405 | 0.225 | 1.80# |
| Moderate implementation of FOYC and fair delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 0.856 | 0.284 | 3.02** | 0.278 | 0.135 | 2.06* | 0.318 | 0.119 | 2.67** | 0.251 | 0.201 | 1.25 |
| Moderate implementation of FOYC and poor delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 0.767 | 0.319 | 2.40* | 0.279 | 0.155 | 1.80# | 0.138 | 0.138 | 1.00 | −0.035 | 0.227 | −0.15 |
| Low implementation of FOYC and good delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 1.057 | 0.509 | 2.08* | 0.357 | 0.256 | 1.40 | 0.370 | 0.253 | 1.46 | 0.580 | 0.364 | 1.59 |
| Low implementation of FOYC and fair delivery of booster in grade 7/8 | 0.590 | 0.282 | 2.09* | 0.190 | 0.143 | 1.32 | 0.248 | 0.131 | 1.89# | 0.181 | 0.207 | 0.88 |
| Low implementation of FOYC and poor delivery of booster in grade 7/8 (ref) | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Schoola | 0.026 | 0.049 | 0.52 | 0.015 | 0.009 | 1.55# | - | - | 0.009 | 0.020 | 0.43 | |
| Class (nested within school)a | 0.384 | 0.083 | 4.65*** | 0.015 | 0.012 | 1.27 | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.61 | 0.142 | 0.035 | 4.00*** |
# P < 0.10
*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01
***P < 0.001
a z test. Good delivery of booster = covered 8–10 activities; fair delivery of booster = covered 4–7 activities; poor delivery of booster = covered 0–3 activities
Correlation coefficients among factors influencing teacher’s implementation of FOYC and student outcomes
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors influencing implementation | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Comfort level with FOYC | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. Attitudes towards FOYC | 0.20a | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Student engagement | 0.07 | 0.20b | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 4. Interactive teaching | 0.34c | 0.18a | 0.01 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 5. Years as teacher | 0.33c | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 6. FOYC workshop | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.30c | 0.04 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 7. Implementation cluster | 0.24b | 0.35c | 0.14a | 0.27c | -0.08 | 0.25c | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Student outcomes in grade 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 8. HIV/AIDS knowledge | 0.07 | 0.32c | 0.02 | 0.03 | -0.02 | 0.12 | 0.36c | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 9. Reproductive health skills | 0.11 | 0.30c | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.35c | 0.44c | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 10. Self-efficacy | 0.11 | 0.27c | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.16a | 0.19a | 0.35c | 1 | |||||||||||
| 11. Intention | 0.15 | 0.24b | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.18a | 0.39c | 0.22b | 0.16a | 1 | ||||||||||
| Student outcomes in grade 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 12. HIV/AIDS knowledge | 0.13 | 0.30c | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.16a | 0.20b | 0.47c | 0.28c | 0.10 | 0.26c | 1 | |||||||||
| 13. Reproductive health skills | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.22b | 0.22b | 0.01 | 0.18a | 0.48c | 1 | ||||||||
| 14. Self-efficacy | 0.02 | -0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.03 | -0.07 | -0.01 | 0.09 | 0.23b | 0.48c | 0.08c | 0.15a | 0.15a | 1 | |||||||
| 15. Intention | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.18a | 0.05 | 0.00 | -0.03 | 0.08 | 0.32c | 0.20b | 0.05 | 0.41c | 0.41c | 0.49c | 0.30c | 1 | ||||||
| Student outcomes in grade 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 16. HIV/AIDS knowledge | 0.04 | 0.19a | 0.07 | -0.03 | 0.17a | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.40c | 0.27c | -0.06 | 0.36c | 0.61c | 0.33c | -0.05 | 0.33c | 1 | |||||
| 17.Reproductive health skills | -0.07 | 0.12 | -0.03 | 0.11 | 0.18a | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.23b | -0.03 | 0.21b | 0.16a | 0.32c | -0.06 | 0.15a | 0.38c | 1 | ||||
| 18. Self-efficacy | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.22b | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.26c | 0.32c | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.22b | 0.48c | 0.27c | 0.03 | 0.41c | 1 | |||
| 19. Intention | -0.03 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.06 | -0.10 | -0.01 | -0.07 | 0.24b | 0.11 | -0.17a | 0.45c | 0.31c | 0.16a | -0.03 | 0.39c | 0.36c | 0.22b | -0.04 | 1 | ||
| Delivery of booster session | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 20. Grade 7 booster | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.17a | 0.23b | 0.19a | 0.16a | 0.20c | 0.23c | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.19c | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 1 | |
| 21. Grade 8 booster | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.07 | -0.02 | 0.09 | -0.05 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.16a | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.14a | 0.14c | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.15a | 1 |
a P < 0.05
b P < 0.01
c P < 0.001
Fig. 2Hypothesized structural model of relationships among factors that influence teachers’ quality of implementation and long-term student outcomes