Skip to main content

Table 3 Program performance ratings 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®

GTO steps

Year 1a

Year 2a

Change from year 1 to year 2

M(SD)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

M(SD)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

Hedges’ g (95 % CI)

Generalized omega-squaredb

Control

Intervention

Control

Intervention

Control

Intervention

Difference of differences

1. Needs assessment

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2. Goals

1.9(0.3)

2.9(0.6)***

2.23 (1.32, 3.14)

1.7(0.5)

3.6(0.8)***

2.95 (1.85, 4.04)

−0.56 (−1.28, 0.16)

1.23 (0.39, 2.07)**

0.20**

3. Best practices

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

4. Fit

2.1(1.1)

2.9(0.9)*

0.88 (0.14, 1.62)

1.4(0.6)

3.0(1.6)**

1.28 (0.46, 2.09)

−0.72 (−1.44, 0.01)

0.00 (−0.74, 0.74)

0.003

5. Capacity

1.6(0.8)

2.9(1.0)***

1.49 (0.69, 2.28)

1.5(0.6)

3.7(0.9)***

2.97 (1.88, 4.07)

−0.19 (−0.91, 0.53)

1.04 (0.25, 1.83)*

0.077

6. Planning

1.5(0.6)

3.0(1.1)***

1.70 (0.88, 2.52)

1.5(0.7)

3.3(1.4)***

1.62 (0.75, 2.49)

0.01 (−0.71, 0.72)

0.39 (−0.36, 1.14)

−0.013

7. Process evaluation

1.4(0.6)

2.7(0.9)***

1.70 (0.88, 2.52)

2.5(0.9)

3.2(1.2)

0.74 (−0.03, 1.50)

1.75 (0.92, 2.58)*

0.51 (−0.24, 1.27)

0.025

8. Outcome evaluation

1.2(0.8)

2.5(0.8)***

1.73 (0.90, 2.55)

1.1(0.5)

3.2(0.8)***

3.05 (1.96, 4.14)

−0.08 (−0.79, 0.62)

0.88 (0.10, 1.66)*

0.040

9. Continuous quality improvement

1.6(0.8)

2.3(0.7)*

1.00 (0.25, 1.75)

1.6(1.1)

2.6(1.0)*

0.91 (0.13, 1.69)

0.07 (−0.63, 0.78)

0.38 (−0.37, 1.13)

−0.019

10. Sustainability

1.4(0.5)

2.1(0.6)*

0.77 (0.03, 1.52)

2.0(1.2)

3.3(1.2)*

1.10 (0.30, 1.90)

0.62 (−0.10, 1.34)

2.05 (1.12, 2.98)**

0.022

Total

1.6(0.4)

2.7(0.6)***

2.14 (1.25, 3.02)

1.7(0.4)

3.2(0.9)***

2.29 (1.34, 3.25)

0.20 (−0.51, 0.90)

1.33 (0.51, 2.16)*

0.035

  1. Performance ratings were significantly higher for the intervention group where noted with the following asterisks
  2. NA not applicable because that GTO step was not tested, ns not significant
  3. *False discovery rate adjusted p < .05, significant at the 5 % level
  4. **p < .01, significant at the 1 % level
  5. ***p < .001, significant at the 0.1 % level
  6. aTests comparing performance ratings between the intervention and control groups within year. Greater performance scores in the intervention group are noted with asterisks
  7. bTests comparing performance ratings between years 1 and 2 within and between groups. Differences in changes in performance ratings are noted with asterisks
Back to article page

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908