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