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