Table 1 P2P process evaluation items
| ITEMS | CRITERIA | INDICATORS | TOOLS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did actions go according to plan? |
• Compliance with provided protocol • Respect of schedule • Running in intervention and control groups |
• Several steps • Step duration • Completion of each step • Measurement of deviation from the protocol |
• Protocol drafting • Organization of indicators continuous reporting • Log book • Schedule |
| 2. Did actions mobilize participants? |
• Participation: - Project’s Technical Committee - Beneficiary peers - Teaching peers |
• Regular attendance • Representativeness | • Attendance sheet |
| 3. How did the actions take place in this context? |
• Network analysis: - Members from the high school house of students - High-school teachers - Teaching peers - Beneficiary peers - Project’s technical committee |
• Network density: number of contacts between members • Centralization: marginal or not based on the member’s role |
• Individual meetings with key program actors • 3 evaluations (start, middle, and conclusion of the program) |
| 4. How were the actions planned with the teaching peers? |
• Issues and assets when taking actions • Teaching-peers needs • Relationship with technical committee |
• Teaching peers needs analysis (relevance) • Adequacy of means to needs (consistency) • Review of actions | • Interviews with the teaching peers at the end of first year and second year of the program |
| 5. How can the P2P program induce changes in high schools? | • Changes in the no smoking policy in high schools | • Changes in the high school students environment |
• Number of changes • Time-scale change (short term, long term) |