Skip to main content

Table 4 Delivery Agent Quantitative Assessment of Delivery Expectations and Implementation Strategy

From: SIPsmartER delivered through rural, local health districts: adoption and implementation outcomes

Item Post-Training
(n = 7)
After 1st round of delivery
(n = 6)a
After 2nd round of delivery
(n = 4)b
Intervention delivery   Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
 Lesson Delivery Confidence to adequately prepare for classes 5.0 (0.6)   
Perceived feasibility to adequately prepare for classes 4.3 (1.0)   
Perception of how well they adequately prepared for classesd   5.2 (0.9) 5.6 (0.8)
Confidence to meet lesson objectives when deliveringc 5.0 (0.6)   
Perception of if they met lesson objectives when deliveringc,d   5.2 (0.8) 5.4 (0.8)
Confidence to meet the learning needs of participants 4.8 (0.8)   
Perception of if they met the learning needs of participantsd   5.4 (0.9) 5.6 (0.8)
 Participant management Perceived feasibility to call participants about classes 3.1 (1.3)   
Perceived feasibility to track participant attendance 4.1 (1.3)   
 Teach-back calls Confidence to deliver the teach-back call 4.6 (1.3)   
Perceived feasibility to deliver the teach-back call 2.6 (1.5)   
 Missed class calls Confidence to deliver missed class calls 4.6 (1.3)   
Perceived feasibility to deliver missed class calls 2.4 (1.3)   
Implementation Strategy
 General Confidence that will get the necessary support from SIPsmartER staff 4.9 (1.2)   
Perception of how well they received necessary support from SIPsmartER staffd   5.7 (0.7) 6.0 (0.0)
 Two-day training Satisfaction with training length 5.3 (0.5)   
Satisfaction with material presentation 5.3 (0.8)   
Perceived helpfulness of the 2 day trainingd   5.4 (0.9) 6.0 (0.0)
 Pre-lesson meetings Perceived helpfulness of pre-lesson meetingsd   5.4 (0.9) 6.0 (0.0)
 Fidelity checklists Perceived feasibility to complete fidelity check-lists 4.7 (1.0)   
Perceived helpfulness of fidelity checklists   4.9 (1.3) 5.6 (0.8)
 Lesson observations Perceived helpfulness of lesson observations   5.4 (0.9) 6.0 (0.0)
 Post-lesson meetings Perceived feasibility to complete lesson debriefings 4.1 (1.1)   
Perceived helpfulness of post-lesson meetingsd   5.2 (1.4) 6.0 (0.0)
  1. a n = 6 because one delivery agent did not complete the post-cohort survey after the first round of delivery (Fall 2016-Spring 2017)
  2. b n = 4 because only four delivery agents delivered SIPsmartER during the second round as one of the districts completed their cohorts during the first round of delivery (Summer 2017 – Winter 2018)
  3. c Score is an average of delivery agent rating for individual items for each of the three lessons
  4. d Items were on a 4-point agreement or helpfulness scale that was rescaled to a 6-point scale