Skip to main content

Table 5 Study analyses and results summary

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

Variable Measures Significant results
How much GTO was received?
Implementation support TA hours delivered in year 1 Intervention group received more TA hours (total and for all GTO steps) than the control group
TA hours delivered in year 2 Intervention group received more TA hours (total and for all GTO steps) than the control group
Differences between years 1 and 2 Total TA hours increased for both groups (except for hours spent on GTO step 4), but increased more for the intervention group
What impact did GTO have on sites performance and fidelity?
Performance Year 1 interview scores Intervention group scored higher on performance (total and for all GTO steps) than the control group
Year 2 interview scores Intervention group scored higher on performance (total and for all GTO steps except step 7) than the control group
Differences between year 1 and 2 • Total scores (and scores for steps 2, 5, 8, and 10) increased for both intervention and control groups
• Step 2 increased more for the intervention group
• Step 7 increased more for the control group
Fidelity Year 1 adherence, quality of delivery1, and dosage • Intervention group had fewer activities “not at all” completed
• No differences between groups on quality of delivery1 or attendance
Year 2 adherence, quality of delivery1, and dosage • Intervention group had more activities completed in full and higher ratings of all quality of delivery variables
• No differences between groups on attendance
Differences between year 1 to 2 • Intervention group had more activities rated as completed in full an increase in the quality of delivery (two dimensions: facilitator enthusiasm and objectives met) than in year 1
• Intervention group had a greater increase in activities rated as completed in full and quality of delivery (two dimensions: facilitator enthusiasm and objectives met) than the control group
Is there empirical support for the GTO logic model?
GTO predicts performance (intervention group only) Year 1 TA hours and interview scores Not significant
Year 2 TA hours and interview scores • TA hours predicted performance of GTO step 9 and total score
• All other GTO steps were not significant
Change in TA hours and interview scores between year 1 and 2 Not significant
Performance predicts fidelity (both intervention and control group) Year 1 performance scores and adherence Higher performance predicts an increase in the odds of an MPC activity being rated “fully” or “partially”
Year 2 performance scores and adherence Higher performance predicts an increase in the odds of an MPC activity being rated “fully”
Differences between year 1 and 2 Not significant
  1. 1Classroom control, student interest, facilitator enthusiasm, objectives met