Fidelity, Feasibility and Adaptation of a Family Planning Intervention for Young Women in Zimbabwe: Provider Perspectives and Experiences
-
Published:2023-03-24
Issue:2
Volume:3
Page:182-194
-
ISSN:2662-9275
-
Container-title:Global Implementation Research and Applications
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Glob Implement Res Appl
Author:
Mavodza Constancia V.ORCID, Bernays Sarah, Mackworth-Young Constance R. S., Nyamwanza Rangarirayi, Nzombe Portia, Dauya Ethel, Chikwari Chido Dziva, Tembo Mandikudza, Apollo Tsitsi, Mugurungi Owen, Madzima Bernard, Nguwo Dadirai, Ferrand Rashida Abbas, Busza Joanna
Abstract
AbstractThe CHIEDZA (Community-based Interventions to improve HIV outcomes in youth: a cluster randomised trial in Zimbabwe) trial evaluated an integrated package of HIV and sexual and reproductive health services for young people aged 16–24 years in Zimbabwe. The family planning component aimed to improve access to information, services, and contraceptives delivered by trained youth-friendly providers within a community-based setting for young women. Responsively adapting the intervention was a part of the intervention design’s rationale. We investigated the factors influencing implementation fidelity, quality, and feasibility using provider experiences and perspectives. We conducted provider interviews (N = 42), non-participant (N = 18), and participant observation (N = 30) of intervention activities. The data was analyzed thematically. CHIEDZA providers were receptive to providing the family planning intervention, but contexts outside of the intervention created challenges to the intervention’s fidelity. Strategic adaptations were required to ensure service quality within a youth-friendly context. These adaptations strengthened service delivery but also resulted in longer wait times, more frequent visits, and variability of Long-Acting Reversible contraceptives (LARCS) provision which depended on target-driven programming by partner organization. This study was a practical example of how tracking adaptations is vital within process evaluation methods in implementation science. Anticipating that changes will occur is a necessary pre-condition of strong evaluations and tracking adaptations ensures that lessons on feasibility of design, contextual factors, and health system factors are responded to during implementation and can improve quality. Some contextual factors are unpredictable, and implementation should be viewed as a dynamic process where responsive adaptations are necessary, and fidelity is not static.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03719521.
Funder
Forgaty Internation Center of the National Institutes of Health Wellcome Trust
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference46 articles.
1. Amnesty International. (2018). Barriers to sexual and reproductive health information in Zimbabwe. 2. Amoakoh, H. B., Klipstein-Grobusch, K., Ansah, E. K., Grobbee, D. E., Yveoo, L., & Agyepong, I. (2019). How and why front-line health workers (did not) use a multifaceted mHealth intervention to support maternal and neonatal healthcare decision-making in Ghana. BMJ Global Health, 4(2), e001153. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001153 3. Barratt H, Campbell M, & Moore L. (2016). Randomised controlled trials of complex interventions and large-scale transformation of services. In Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, & B. H (Eds.), Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. NIHR Journals Library. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr04160-19 4. Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254 5. Brand, S. L., Quinn, C., Pearson, M., Lennox, C., Owens, C., Kirkpatrick, T., Callaghan, L., Stirzaker, A., Michie, S., & Maguire, M. (2019). Building programme theory to develop more adaptable and scalable complex interventions: Realist formative process evaluation prior to full trial. Evaluation, 25(2), 149–170.
|
|