ArticleBMC public health2024
Process evaluation of a parent-child communication intervention for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Uganda.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious initiatives concerning adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) education in Low-or-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) have been limited by cultural norms and misinformation perpetuated within families. Responding to the paucity of research on the implementation of SRH interventions in LMICs and limited knowledge regarding their mechanisms, this study undertakes a process evaluation of a parent-focused intervention to promote parent-adolescent communication about SRH in Uganda.
methodsThis paper explores the implementation, contextual factors and mechanisms of impact of the intervention, using the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for process evaluations. Implementation was evaluated through indicators of dose, fidelity and adaptations, acceptability and feasibility. The contextual factors and mechanisms of impact were evaluated to refine the intervention's causal assumptions. Data was collected during April - October 2021 in South-Western Uganda using a mixed-methods approach, including document analysis, intervention observations, interviews, focus group discussions and most significant change stories.
resultsThe acceptability of the intervention was related to its community engagement, the strong rapport with delivery agents, and individual characteristics of participants. Five contextual factors influencing implementation were highlighted; (i) cultural norms, (ii) perceptions about youth SRH, (iii) poverty, (iv) Covid-19 pandemic, and (v) prior research projects in the community. When considering the intervention's mechanisms of impact, four causal pathways were identified; (i) Awareness of SRH needs helped parents overcome stigma, (ii) Parenting skills training improved SRH communication, (iii) Group learning stimulated shared parenting, and (iv) Group learning improved co-parenting.
conclusionThe paper presented three key learnings and corresponding recommendations for future research. Firstly, implementation success was credited to meaningful community engagement which improved acceptability and uptake. Secondly, the complex influences of contextual factors highlighted the need for contextual analysis in research studies to inform intervention design. Finally, this evaluation recognised the interplay between mechanisms of impact and suggested further research consider such combined impacts when designing intervention content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.