Process evaluation of the digital Health4Life intervention among a sample of disadvantaged adolescents and teachers.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Lyra Egan, Lauren A Gardner, Nicola C Newton, Katrina E Champion
{"title":"Process evaluation of the digital Health4Life intervention among a sample of disadvantaged adolescents and teachers.","authors":"Lyra Egan, Lauren A Gardner, Nicola C Newton, Katrina E Champion","doi":"10.1093/heapro/daae170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Disadvantaged adolescents, including those from lower socioeconomic status (SES) or geographically remote backgrounds, engage in higher rates of risk behaviours, including poor diet, alcohol and tobacco use. While digital interventions targeting lifestyle risk behaviours show potential, few studies have focused on their implementation and relevance for this population. This study conducted a process evaluation of 'Health4Life', a universal school-based digital program targeting multiple behaviours, among a sample of disadvantaged adolescents. Participants were from six schools classified as low SES (Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage percentile score ≤ 25%), and/or regional using the Australian Statistical Geography Standard. Self-reported student (n = 214) and teacher evaluations (n = 16) assessed Health4Life's acceptability, with qualitative questions capturing areas for improvement. Teacher-reported implementation data (n = 16) measured intervention fidelity and feasibility. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and open-ended responses were thematically analysed. Compared to the entire sample, this subset of students evaluated Health4Life less favourably (66% versus 75%), with fewer enjoying the stories (63% versus 75%) and planning to use the skills and information (60% versus 70%). Teacher evaluations were mostly positive and aligned closely with the entire sample. Fidelity data also indicated comparable levels of student engagement (~92% versus ~85%). Key themes for refinement included improving content relevance and technical execution to better resonate with disadvantaged adolescents. While teacher evaluations suggest Health4Life is a valuable program in low SES or regional contexts, students' lower ratings indicate refinements are needed. Identified areas for improvement will guide co-designing the program's adaptation to improve effectiveness and relevance for disadvantaged adolescents. Trial registration: The Health4Life trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000431123).</p>","PeriodicalId":54256,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion International","volume":"39 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11606168/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae170","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Disadvantaged adolescents, including those from lower socioeconomic status (SES) or geographically remote backgrounds, engage in higher rates of risk behaviours, including poor diet, alcohol and tobacco use. While digital interventions targeting lifestyle risk behaviours show potential, few studies have focused on their implementation and relevance for this population. This study conducted a process evaluation of 'Health4Life', a universal school-based digital program targeting multiple behaviours, among a sample of disadvantaged adolescents. Participants were from six schools classified as low SES (Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage percentile score ≤ 25%), and/or regional using the Australian Statistical Geography Standard. Self-reported student (n = 214) and teacher evaluations (n = 16) assessed Health4Life's acceptability, with qualitative questions capturing areas for improvement. Teacher-reported implementation data (n = 16) measured intervention fidelity and feasibility. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and open-ended responses were thematically analysed. Compared to the entire sample, this subset of students evaluated Health4Life less favourably (66% versus 75%), with fewer enjoying the stories (63% versus 75%) and planning to use the skills and information (60% versus 70%). Teacher evaluations were mostly positive and aligned closely with the entire sample. Fidelity data also indicated comparable levels of student engagement (~92% versus ~85%). Key themes for refinement included improving content relevance and technical execution to better resonate with disadvantaged adolescents. While teacher evaluations suggest Health4Life is a valuable program in low SES or regional contexts, students' lower ratings indicate refinements are needed. Identified areas for improvement will guide co-designing the program's adaptation to improve effectiveness and relevance for disadvantaged adolescents. Trial registration: The Health4Life trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000431123).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Promotion International
Health Promotion International Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: Health Promotion International contains refereed original articles, reviews, and debate articles on major themes and innovations in the health promotion field. In line with the remits of the series of global conferences on health promotion the journal expressly invites contributions from sectors beyond health. These may include education, employment, government, the media, industry, environmental agencies, and community networks. As the thought journal of the international health promotion movement we seek in particular theoretical, methodological and activist advances to the field. Thus, the journal provides a unique focal point for articles of high quality that describe not only theories and concepts, research projects and policy formulation, but also planned and spontaneous activities, organizational change, as well as social and environmental development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信