1 / 22

PREPARE PROJECT

PREPARE PROJECT. Feedback Cape Town Nov 27 2013 Dar Es Salaam Site – Sylvia Kaaya. Introduction. 38 Schools randomized into 19 intervention and 19 delayed intervention arms Two streams in each class 5 & 6 were randomly selected for intervention implementation (4 classes) Intervention:

quynh
Download Presentation

PREPARE PROJECT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PREPARE PROJECT Feedback Cape Town Nov 27 2013 Dar Es Salaam Site – Sylvia Kaaya

  2. Introduction • 38 Schools randomized into 19 intervention and 19 delayed intervention arms • Two streams in each class 5 & 6 were randomly selected for intervention implementation (4 classes) • Intervention: • All learners in implementing classes 5 and 6 in the 19 intervention schools • Evaluation: • All learners in implementing classes 5 & 6 aged 12-14 years in the 19 intervention and delayed intervention schools

  3. Introduction Three Programs components developed and implemented • A Classroom-based • A Peer-led • Youth friendly services • Aimed to facilitate sustainable relationships between intervention schools and youth friendly services

  4. Introduction Program objectives Behaviour change • Delay sex initiation/ abstinence if sexually active • Consistent condom use Proximal predictors • Increased knowledge on HIV & protection • Change attitudes& norms about delayed sex initiation and condom use • Increased self-efficacy to delay sex initiation & use condoms

  5. Introduction: Manuals

  6. Process evaluation

  7. Objectives • Implementation • Were planned activities correctly implemented? • What challenges existed in implementation? • Quality • Were instructional methods and materials well received? • Were teachers having any difficulties in preparing lesson plans? • Were peer educators confident and prepared? • Exposure/Involvement • Are students being exposed to each session/activity? • Are students participating during the sessions/activities? • Are students comfortable talking about sexuality and reproductive health with peers? • Changed beliefs • Did the program have an impact on the way learners think about sexuality?

  8. Data Sources • Workbooks – key sections work done by learner and graded • Program fidelity and learners acceptability of the program • Analysis from random sample of 10% workbooks from each school Progress: Data entry SPSS • Observation Forms • Assesses quality of implementation and involvement of learners • Planned at least 2 of each session observed; Have classroom (n=32), Peer sessions (n=16) and YFS (n=8) • Progress: Analysis matrices • Interview Guides – narrative data • KII (Education Municipal officeand Health workers) • FGD (exposed learners, Peer educators , teachers, head teachers, academic coordinators and Parents) Progress: Code book development and narrative entry to Nvivo Ver10 • Teacher’s lesson plan forms and Peer leaders’ Diaries Progress: Analysis • Weekly feed-back calls from implementing teachers – challenges and solutions

  9. Performance Tools: Peer and Classroom Observation tools and Weekly call tool. Results: 0 poor school, 9 (47%) Excellent schools and 10 (53%) Average schools Excellent schools: • Team teaching • Self innovation • Sense of ownership among the teachers and students as well • Cooperation and support from the head teachers office • Morale of the teachers and the learners in implementing the program high • Good peer educators who led well the peer sessions Average schools: • No team teaching • Low morale of the teachers and peer educators in implementation • Little self innovation on how best to implement the program • Low ability of the peer educators facilitation of the peer sessions • Cooperation and support from the head teachers office • Sense of ownership among the teachers and students as well CAPE TOWN NOVEMBER 2013

  10. Outcome evaluation

  11. Summary of the impact evaluation study design

  12. Baseline

  13. Follow Up 1 (90.7% capture) • Baseline Vs FU1: 473 (9.3%)

  14. Follow Up 2 (84.6% capture) • Baseline Vs FU2: 784 (15%) Lost to follow up • FU1 Vs FU2: 311 (6.7%) Lost to follow up

  15. Intervention Booster

  16. Booster • One-day in school activities developed by students • Show cased a number of activities to other students, parents and community leaders • Some of the activities included:- • Drama • Songs • Poem • Picture competition • Reproductive health talks from nurses

  17. Delayed intervention

  18. Delayed Intervention • Delayed intervention is planned to start in January 2014 • Formation of planning committee (n=8) • Pairing of schools (Intervention and delayed intervention) • Sharing of students, teachers and peer-educator manuals during implementation in the delayed intervention schools.

  19. Acknowledgements • Bergen Team • Leif and Annegreet • Maastricht University • Hein De Vries • Matthijs Eggers

  20. Dar Team Site PI: Sylvia Kaaya Co- PIs: Gad Kilonzo, Elia Mmbagaand Khalifa Mrumbi Coordinator & Research Fellow: LusajoKajula Intervention: Juliana Joachim Evaluation: Mrema Noel MSc. Applied Epidemiology: Dr. Prosper Njau

  21. AhsanteSana!

More Related