Skip to main content

Table 4 Fidelity comparisons in years 1 and 2

From: Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®

 

Year 1

Year 2

Change from year 1 to year 2, odd ratio (95 % CI)

Adherence: How well was the MPC activity completed?

Control

Intervention

Control

Intervention

Control

Intervention

Difference of differences

Freq

%

Freq

%

Freq

%

Freq

%

0.97 (0.62, 1.50)

8.65 (4.64, 16.11)***

Logistic b = 2.19 (1.43, 2.95)***

Fully

145

55.7

165

57.1

74

55.0

156

92.0d

Partially

83

31.9

113

39.1

48

36.0

12

7.0

Not at all

32

12.3

11

3.8c

12

9.0

1

1.0

Number of activity observations

260

100

289

100

134

100

169

100

Quality of delivery (1 = least to 7 = most)a

M (SD)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

M(SD)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

Generalized omega-squaredd

Control (N = 46)

Intervention (N = 51)

 

Control (N = 25)

Intervention (N = 29)

 

Control

Intervention

Difference of differences

Classroom control

4.8 (1.4)

4.7 (1.5)

−0.08 (−0.48, 0.31)

4.7 (1.29)

5.4 (1.10)e

0.68 (0.13, 1.23)

−0.13 (−0.62, 0.36)

0.51 (0.05, 0.97)

0.066

Student interest

5.2 (1.4)

5.1 (1.1)

−0.06 (−0.46, 0.34)

4.9 (1.06)

5.6 (0.95)e

0.71 (0.16, 1.27)

−0.08 (−0.57, 0.42)

0.89 (0.41, 1.37)

0.051

Facilitator enthusiasm

5.0 (1.1)

4.7 (1.2)

−0.22 (−0.62, 0.18)

4.8 (1.00)

5.5 (0.69)e

0.77 (0.21, 1.32)

−0.28 (−0.77, 0.21)

0.39 (−0.07, 0.85)**

0.015**

Objectives met

5.0 (1.3)

5.1 (1.3)

0.09 (−0.32, 0.49)

4.9 (1.07)

6.0 (1.09)e

1.18 (0.59, 1.76)

−0.13 (−0.62, 0.36)

0.70 (0.23, 1.17)**

0.058**

Dosageb

Control (N = 121)

Intervention (N = 200)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

Control (N = 103)

Intervention (N = 146)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

   

Percent modules attended, M (SD)

0.77 (0.24)

0.73 (0.27)

−0.13 (−0.36, 0.09)

0.74 (0.29)

0.69 (0.29)

−0.18 (−0.43, 0.08)

−0.0004 (−0.27, 0.26)

−0.09 (−0.31, 0.12)

−0.025

  1. Differences in changes in fidelity ratings where noted with the following asterisks
  2. *False discovery rate adjusted p < .05, significant at the 5 % level
  3. **p < .01, significant at the 1 % level
  4. ***p < .001, significant at the 0.1 % level
  5. a N = number of modules observed for quality of delivery ratings
  6. b N = youth participants with attendance data
  7. cIn year 1, comparing “not at all” vs. “partially + fully,” OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.14, 0.92, t(519) = 2.13 p = .033
  8. dIn year 2, comparing not at all + partially vs. fully, OR 11.81 95 % CI 4.12, 33.80, t(274) = 4.6, p < 0.001
  9. eIn year 2, classroom delivery variables: intervention > control, t(51) = 2.49, p = 0.016 to t(50) = 4.27, p < .001