Dimensions | Constructions | Data synthesis |
---|---|---|
1. Characteristics of the intervention | 1.1 Origin of the intervention | It positively influenced intervention in all sub-areas. |
1.2 Quality and Strength of Evidence | The intervention was designed on the basis of evidence and community preferences. | |
1.3 Adaptability | For two sub-areas, the intervention met needs; for one sub-area, it did not. | |
1.4 Complexity | The intervention was simple to implement. | |
2. External Context | 2.1 Network | AGIR did not have networks of relationships in the area. |
3. Internal Context | 3.1. Structural characteristics | The implementing structures did not have a good internal organization. |
3.2 Networks and communications | Communication between the participants involved in implementation has worked well. | |
3.3 Preparation of implementation | The climate varied between the beginning (negative) and end of the intervention (positive). | |
3.4 Commitment of the leaders | The people in charge of AGIR were well involved in the implementation. | |
3.5 Available resources | Resources were judged by some to be insufficient and by others to be sufficient. | |
4. Characteristics of individuals | 4.1 Knowledge and beliefs about the intervention | The intervention was consistent with the beliefs and expectations of the participants. |
4.2 Self-efficacy | Intervention participants engaged in activities differently. | |
5. Process | 5.1 Planification | Overall business planning was satisfactory |
5.2 Implication | Participants were involved at all stages of the intervention. | |
5.3 Formally appointed internal leaders for implementation | The organizational mode resulted in the emergence of leaders within each team. | |
5.4 Champions | The intervention was not able to generate new leaders. |