Table 2.
Components, conceptualization, methods, and preferred practice indicators for implementation fidelity, outputs, and contextual factors
| Components | Conceptualization | Methods | Preferred practice indicators and categories (bold: preferred practice levels of implementation fidelity for the binary transformation) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implementation fidelity | |||
| Recruitment | Were the planned procedures for recruiting participants for the GMB sessions followed? | Semistructured interviews with school coordinators (after GMB2) and municipal coordinators (6 months after GMB3). |
Students: School coordinator or manager was in charge of recruitment (Yes/No). Participated voluntarily (Yes/No). School staff: School coordinator or manager was in charge of recruitment (Yes/No). Participated voluntarily (Yes/No). Community actors: recruitment was a cooperation between the school and the municipality (Yes/No). Participated voluntarily (Yes/No). |
| Reach | Was the attendance of all participant groups as expected at GMB1-3? | Notes based on transcripts (GMB1-2) and observations (GMB3) |
GMB1: 4–10 vocational students (Yes/No), 4–10 school staff members (including the school coordinator) (Yes/No), 1–2 school managers (Yes/No), Minimum 1 from the municipality (including the municipal coordinator) (Yes/No). GMB2: Same as GMB1. GMB3: Same as GMB1 and minimum 5 community actors (Yes/No). |
| Dose delivered | To what extent was GMB1-3 delivered and implemented consistently and as intended? | Notes based on transcripts (GMB1-2) and observations (GMB3) |
GMB1: The session was completed with at least two facilitators (Yes/No), The script was followed, and aims met (Yes/Minor deviations /Major deviations), The CLD was adjusted after the session (Yes/No). GMB2: Same as GMB1. GMB3: Same as GMB1. |
| Outputs | |||
| Engagement | Did the participants have the motivation and agency to solve the problem? | Surveys to all participants after GMB3. | |
| Knowledge | Did participants have adequate understanding to solve the problem? | Surveys to all participants after GMB3 | |
| Action ideas and leverage points | Could actions be developed targeting various system levels? | Templates containing detailed descriptions of the action idea (during GMB3). | |
| Potential contextual influences | |||
| Participant responsiveness | How did participant responsiveness impact implementation fidelity and outputs? | Semistructured interviews with school coordinators (after GMB2), department managers (after GMB3), and the municipal coordinators (six months after GMB3). | |
| School and municipality context | What school- and municipal-level factors had an influence on implementation fidelity and outputs? | Semistructured interviews with school coordinators (after GMB2), department managers (after GMB3), and the municipal coordinators (six months after GMB3). | |
Notes: GMB: Group Model Building.