Dataset Information

Pilot Implementation of a User-Driven, Web-Based Application Designed to Improve Sexual Health Knowledge and Communication Among Young Zambians: Mixed Methods Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital health interventions show promise in improving the uptake of HIV services among adolescents and young people aged 15 to 24 years in sub-Saharan Africa.

Objective

This study aimed to pilot-test a theory-based, empirically grounded web-based application designed to increase condom-related knowledge, sexual and reproductive health (SRH) communication, and healthier choices among young Zambians.

Methods

We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental evaluation of the user-driven Be in the Know Zambia (BITKZ) web application using web-based surveys and in-depth interviews (IDIs) on the phone. We enrolled participants using social media advertisements. Our final analysis set comprised 46.04% (749/1627) of participants in the intervention group (which received the BITKZ link) and 53.96% (878/1627) of participants in the comparison group (no intervention). We collected survey data at study enrollment (baseline) and 5 weeks after the first enrollment in each group. Approximately 85% (637/749) of BITKZ users completed a user survey, of whom 9.3% (59/637) participated in IDIs. We calculated the time interfacing with BITKZ using the application log files. We conducted descriptive analyses to describe baseline characteristics and the user experience. At the endline, we assessed association using a t test and adjusted logistic regression for binary outcomes and ordinal regression for ordered outcomes, conditioning on age, sex, marital status, and employment status. We used adjusted average treatment effects (aATE) to assess the effects of BITKZ intervention. We conducted rapid matrix analyses of IDI transcripts in Microsoft Excel, sorting the data by theme, gender, and experience rating.

Results

Users rated BITKZ highly (excellent: 352/609, 57.8%; good: 218/609, 35.8%). At the endline, the intervention group had a higher level of knowledge related to condoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.35, 95% CI 1.06-1.69) and on wearing condoms correctly (aOR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.49). Those who had full-time employment had increased odds of knowing how to wear condoms correctly (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI 1.06-2.63) compared with those who reported being unemployed, as did men when compared with women (aOR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.59-2.31). Those in the intervention group were more likely to score higher for intention to test for sexually transmitted infections (STIs; aATE 0.21; P=.01) and HIV (aATE 0.32; P=.05), as well as for resisting peer pressure (aATE 2.64; P=.02). IDIs corroborated increased knowledge on correct condom use among men and female condoms among women, awareness of STIs and testing, and resistance to peer pressure. Interviewees provided examples of more open SRH communication with partners and peers and of considering, adopting, and influencing others to adopt healthier behaviors.

Conclusions

Despite the high baseline awareness of SRH among Zambian adolescents and young people with internet access, BITKZ provided modest gains in condom-related knowledge, resistance to peer pressure, and intention to test for STIs and HIV.

SUBMITTER: Sharma A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305403 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs more people are surviving stroke, there is a growing need for services and programs that support the long-term needs of people living with the effects of stroke. Exercise has many benefits; however, most people with stroke do not have access to specialized exercise programs that meet their needs in their communities. To catalyze the implementation of these programs, our team developed the Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner, an evidence-informed implementation guide for teams planning a community-based exercise program for people with stroke.ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a user evaluation to elicit user perceptions of the usefulness and acceptability of the Planner to inform revisions.MethodsThis mixed methods study used a concurrent triangulation design. We used purposive sampling to enroll a diverse sample of end users (program managers and coordinators, rehabilitation health partners, and fitness professionals) from three main groups: those who are currently planning a program, those who intend to plan a program in the future, and those who had previously planned a program. Participants reviewed the Planner and completed a questionnaire and interviews to identify positive features, areas of improvement, value, and feasibility. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. We triangulated the data sources to identify Planner modifications.ResultsA total of 39 people participated in this study. Overall, the feedback was positive, highlighting the value of the Planner's comprehensiveness, tools and templates, and real-world examples. The identified areas for improvement included clarifying the need for specific steps, refining navigation, and creating more action-oriented content. Most participants reported an increase in knowledge and confidence after reading the Planner and reported that using the resource would improve their planning approach.ConclusionsWe used a rigorous and user-centered process to develop and evaluate the Planner. End users indicated that it is a valuable resource and identified specific changes for improvement. The Planner was subsequently updated and is now publicly available for community planning teams to use in the planning and delivery of evidence-informed, sustainable, community-based exercise programs for people with stroke.

Project description:BackgroundAcquired brain injuries (ABIs) commonly cause cognitive-communication disorders, which can have a pervasive psychosocial impact on a person's life. More than 135 million people worldwide currently live with ABI, and this large and growing burden is increasingly surpassing global rehabilitation service capacity. A web-based service delivery model may offer a scalable solution. The Social Brain Toolkit is an evidence-based suite of 3 web-based communication training interventions for people with ABI and their communication partners. Successful real-world delivery of web-based interventions such as the Social Brain Toolkit requires investigation of intervention implementation in addition to efficacy and effectiveness.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the Social Brain Toolkit as a web-based service delivery model.MethodsThis is a mixed methods, prospective, hybrid type 2 implementation-effectiveness study, theoretically underpinned by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework of digital health implementation. We will document implementation strategies preemptively deployed to support the launch of the Social Brain Toolkit interventions, as well as implementation strategies identified by end users through formative evaluation of the Social Brain Toolkit. We will prospectively observe implementation outcomes, selected on the basis of the NASSS framework, through quantitative web analytics of intervention use, qualitative and quantitative pre- and postintervention survey data from all users within a specified sample frame, and qualitative interviews with a subset of users of each intervention. Qualitative implementation data will be deductively analyzed against the NASSS framework. Quantitative implementation data will be analyzed descriptively. We will obtain effectiveness outcomes through web-based knowledge tests, custom user questionnaires, and formal clinical tools. Quantitative effectiveness outcomes will be analyzed through descriptive statistics and the Reliable Change Index, with repeated analysis of variance (pretraining, posttraining, and follow-up), to determine whether there is any significant improvement within this participant sample.ResultsData collection commenced on July 2, 2021, and is expected to conclude on June 1, 2022, after a 6-month sample frame of analytics for each Social Brain Toolkit intervention. Data analysis will occur concurrently with data collection until mid-2022, with results expected for publication late 2022 and early 2023.ConclusionsEnd-user evaluation of the Social Brain Toolkit's implementation can guide intervention development and implementation to reach and meet community needs in a feasible, scalable, sustainable, and acceptable manner. End user feedback will be directly incorporated and addressed wherever possible in the next version of the Social Brain Toolkit. Learnings from these findings will benefit the implementation of this and future web-based psychosocial interventions for people with ABI and other populations.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001170819; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621001170819, Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001177842; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621001177842, Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001180808; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621001180808.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/31995.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People seek information on the Web for managing their colorectal cancer (CRC) risk but retrieve much personally irrelevant material. Targeting information pertinent to this cohort via a frequently asked question (FAQ) format could improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE:We identified and prioritized colorectal cancer information for men and women aged 35 to 74 years (study 1) and built a website containing FAQs ordered by age and gender. In study 2, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test whether targeted FAQs were more influential on intention to act on CRC risk than the same information accessed via a generic topic list. Secondary analyses compared preference for information delivery, usability, relevance, and likelihood of recommendation of FAQ and LIST websites. METHODS:Study 1 determined the colorectal cancer information needs of Australians (N=600) by sex and age group (35-49, 50-59, 60-74) through a Web-based survey. Free-text responses were categorized as FAQs: the top 5 issues within each of the 6 cohorts were identified. Study 2 (N=240) compared the impact of presentation as targeted FAQ links to information with links presented as a generic list (LIST) and a CONTROL (no information) condition. We also tested preference for presentation of access to information as FAQ or LIST by adding a CHOICE condition (a self-selected choice of FAQs or a list of information topics). RESULTS:Study 1 showed considerable consistency in information priorities among all 6 cohorts with 2 main concerns: treatment of CRC and risk factors. Some differences included a focus on general risk factors, excluding diet and lifestyle, in the younger cohort, and on the existence of a test for CRC in the older cohorts. Study 2 demonstrated that, although respondents preferred information access ordered by FAQs over a list, presentation in this format had limited impact on readiness to act on colorectal cancer risk compared with the list or a no-information control (P=.06). Both FAQ and LIST were evaluated as equally usable. Those aged 35 to 49 years rated the information less relevant to them and others in their age group, and information ordered by FAQs was rated, across all age groups and both sexes, as less relevant to people outside the age group targeted within the FAQs. CONCLUSIONS:FAQs are preferred over a list as a strategy for presenting access to information about CRC. They may improve intention to act on risk, although further research is required. Future research should aim to identify better the characteristics of information content and presentation that optimize perceived relevance and fully engage the target audience. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618000137291; https://www.anzctr.org. au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374129 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x2Mr6rPC).

Project description:BackgroundThe Social Brain Toolkit, conceived and developed in partnership with stakeholders, is a novel suite of web-based communication interventions for people with brain injury and their communication partners. To support effective implementation, the developers of the Social Brain Toolkit have collaborated with people with brain injury, communication partners, clinicians, and individuals with digital health implementation experience to coproduce new implementation knowledge. In recognition of the equal value of experiential and academic knowledge, both types of knowledge are included in this study protocol, with input from stakeholder coauthors.ObjectiveThis study aims to collaborate with stakeholders to prioritize theoretically based implementation targets for the Social Brain Toolkit, understand the nature of these priorities, and develop targeted implementation strategies to address these priorities, in order to support the Social Brain Toolkit's implementation.MethodsTheoretically underpinned by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework of digital health implementation, a maximum variation sample (N=35) of stakeholders coproduced knowledge of the implementation of the Social Brain Toolkit. People with brain injury (n=10), communication partners (n=11), and clinicians (n=5) participated in an initial web-based prioritization survey based on the NASSS framework. Survey completion was facilitated by plain English explanations and accessible captioned videos developed through 3 rounds of piloting. A speech-language pathologist also assisted stakeholders with brain injury to participate in the survey via video teleconference. Participants subsequently elaborated on their identified priorities via 7 web-based focus groups, in which researchers and stakeholders exchanged stakeholder perspectives and research evidence from a concurrent systematic review. Stakeholders were supported to engage in focus groups through the use of visual supports and plain English explanations. Additionally, individuals with experience in digital health implementation (n=9) responded to the prioritization survey questions via individual interview. The results will be deductively analyzed in relation to the NASSS framework in a coauthorship process with people with brain injury, communication partners, and clinicians.ResultsEthical approval was received from the University of Technology Sydney Health and Medical Research Ethics Committee (ETH20-5466) on December 15, 2020. Data were collected from April 13 to November 18, 2021. Data analysis is currently underway, with results expected for publication in mid-2022.ConclusionsIn this study, researchers supported individuals with living experience of acquired brain injury, of communicating with or clinically supporting someone post injury, and of digital health implementation, to directly access and leverage the latest implementation research evidence and theory. With this support, stakeholders were able to prioritize implementation research targets, develop targeted implementation solutions, and coauthor and publish new implementation findings. The results will be used to optimize the implementation of 3 real-world, evidence-based interventions and thus improve the outcomes of people with brain injury and their communication partners.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/35080.