Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 19;16(10):e0258527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258527

Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi

Marisen Mwale 1,2,*, Adamson S Muula 3,4
Editor: Brian C Zanoni5
PMCID: PMC8525741  PMID: 34665811

Abstract

We sought to assess stakeholder acceptability of a risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] designed for adolescent HIV risk reduction and whose efficacy we tested in selected schools in Northern Malawi. We used qualitative procedures in sampling, data collection and data analysis. Our data collection instrument was the semi-structured interview and we applied thematic content analysis to establish stakeholder evaluations of the RRBM model. The study population included10 experts working within key organizations and teachers from two schools. The organizations were sampled as providers, implementers and designers of interventions while schools were sampled as providers and consumers of interventions. Individual study participants were recruited purposively through snowball sampling. Results showed consensus among participants on the acceptability, potential for scale up and likelihood of model sustainability if implemented. In essence areas to consider improving and modifying included: focus on the rural girl child and inclusion of an economic empowerment component to target the underlying root causes of HIV risk taking behavior. Stakeholders also recommended intervention extension to out of school adolescent groups as well as involvement of traditional leaders. Involvement of parents and religious leaders in intervention scale up was also highlighted. The study serves as a benchmark for stakeholder involvement in model and intervention evaluation and as a link between researchers and project implementers, designers as well as policy makers to bridge the research to policy and practice gap.

Introduction

Sustainable development goal number 3 targets HIV incidence reductions among young people and the general population by 2030 [1]. Malawi with HIV prevalence of 8.8% in the 15–49 years age category is one of the sub-Saharan African countries with a high prevalence and generalized epidemic [2, 3]. Adolescents and young people are one of the key populations considered highly vulnerable to new HIV infections [3]. The national HIV prevalence in the 12–24 years age category is estimated at 5.9% an increase from 3.6% in 2010 [2, 4]. In 2012 alone, there were 6 700 new HIV infections in the 15–19 years category translating to 18 infections on a daily basis [1]. In 2013 there were more than 34 000 infections among young people and of the 36 000 overall new infections in 2016, more than half were in the 12–24 years age group [2, 3].

We designed an HIV intervention model–the risk reduction behavioural model (RRBM) for adolescents with the hope of bridging the intervention vis-à-vis behaviour gap. Previous studies and meta-analysis indicate changes in knowledge but limited behavioural outcomes after interventions [511]. Interventions have mainly registered knowledge changes that do not translate to expected behavioural outcomes [1219]. HIV risk reduction measures according to Hearst and Chen [20] include: abstinence, late sexual debut, consistent condom use, faithfulness to one partner, non-involvement in multiple and concurrent partnerships, non-involvement in culturally related sex, non-involvement in sex under drug, alcohol and substance influence. For our initial study, specificity situation analysis [21] to identify correlates for the Northern region informed model design and made it culturally and contextually tailored.

We tested for model efficacy through a quasi experiment [16] and results were significant on diverse HIV risk reduction and sexual behavioural change outcomes. We therefore conducted a key stakeholder acceptability study within the same research site where the efficacy study was rolled out. The main purpose of the stakeholder acceptability study was to determine perceptions among stakeholders–that is designers, implementers and providers on the acceptability [22] of our RRBM model. Objectives were threefold: first, to assess key stakeholder acceptability of the RRBM model. Second, to determine what modifications need to be done for the RRBM model. And third, to determine the potential for scale up and sustainability of the RRBM model if extrapolated to the entire population of adolescents in Malawi. This paper presents the findings for the stakeholder acceptability study.

Methods and materials

We used a descriptive design applying the qualitative approach in sampling, instrumentation and data analysis. Stakeholders involved in providing, designing, implementing and consuming adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) programmes and interventions in Northern Malawi constituted the research population. The study sites were the same as for the formative situation analysis phase [21] and the confirmatory intervention phase [16]—i.e. Mzuzu City, Mzimba and Nkhata Bay districts. Those in the focal areas of HIV prevention, sexual reproductive health and sexual behavioural change were prioritized. The sample included experts from key organizations and teachers working with adolescents in ASRH programmes that include HIV prevention as a component.

We sampled 10 experts and two teachers for involvement into the study. The snowball sampling procedure was applied in identifying study participants within organizations through project managers. Some of the organizations were already targeted in the first phase of the entire research project [21] and included: Plan Malawi, World Vision Malawi, Population Services International (PSI), Campaign for Girls Education (CAMFED), National AIDS Commission (NAC), Livingstonia Synod AIDS Programme (LISAP), Girl Empowerment Network (GINET), Ekwendeni Hospital HIV and AIDS programme, and the District Health Office. Education stakeholders included teachers and head teachers sampled from Katoto and Luwinga Secondary schools. Organizations (non-governmental-NGOs) were sampled as providers, implementers, designers of interventions and programmes while schools were sampled as providers and consumers of interventions.

To be included, an organization was supposed to be:

  • Focusing on and working in impact areas of adolescent HIV prevention and sexual reproductive health,

  • Implementing some form of BCI in projects and/or programmes

  • Within the study sites and setting of the research project.

Considering that our study was qualitative and also that few organizations are directly involved in adolescent HIV prevention and sexual reproductive health, we may have been limited in options and hence the purposive sampling approaches.

In data collection we used semi-structured interviews. A week before the interviews, experts were furnished with the detailed RRBM model as summarized in the methods subsection, ‘The Risk reduction behavioural model’. The full details of the model are included in S1 File. Other supporting documents included publications on the situation analysis and intervention phases of the study. Provision of the model and study publications was done to allow for evaluation, assessment and consultation within organizations. An interview followed a week later informed by the interview guide (S2 File). Interview items focused on acceptability, potential for model scale-up and on areas for improvement or perhaps modification. Interview guiding questions were piloted in two non-participating organizations before data collection to ensure content reliability of items.

The data collection process at each of the 10 organizations specifically involved the PI identify, brief, and have an expert at a respective organization or institution go through consent forms, the model and supporting documentation a week prior to interviews. The process therefore ensured that the right expert or informant was identified, furnished with the model, arranged an appointment with the PI for an interview a week later. The week grace accorded a period to appraise the model, supporting documents and assent to participate or not before the actual interviews. During the period scheduled for interviews, the PI would first call the expert or informant by phone to confirm their availability. This was despite booking an appointment earlier in the previous week as most experts in organizations as first line managers have busy schedules that could change their programmes any time. After confirmation of availability, the PI would then go to the scheduled organization, Plan Malawi for instance to interview the expert.

At each of the organizations, interviews were conducted in the organizational board room while some experts or informants preferred their office. Before the session, the participant would be de-briefed on the objectives of the study, that participation was voluntary and that if for any reasons they felt obliged not to participate they had freedom to do so. None of the experts who initially assented to participate withdrew from the study. Interviews were face-to-face for purposes of clarity and the PI conducted them personally. Each interview session was scheduled for 30–40 minutes although some sessions ended up shorter or a little longer than planned depending on the responses and ensuing probing. The PI strictly adhered to the interview guide even when some participants were inclined to digress or be overzealous to furnish more information.

After data collection, the recorded interviews were checked for consistency before transcription and coding for data analysis. The PI with assistance from a qualitative data analyst at our University and verification from the co-investigator analysed the data. We analysed data through thematic content analysis. More specifically; audio-recorded semi-structured interview data was transcribed, translated, text bracketed, gleaned, winnowed, categorized using constant comparative procedure, thematized and finally theorized. Themes and sub-themes were coded, categorized and tabulated in line with study objectives. Altogether five main themes were identified. The themes in line with respective objectives included:

Objective 1 –Identifying whether model is acceptable or not.

            Theme 1- acceptability of model.

Objective 2 –Exploring areas needing modification.

            Theme 2 –factors to facilitate implementation effectiveness.

            Theme 3 –factors associated with youth priorities and needs.

            Theme 4 –structural and contextual factors.

Objective 3 –Exploring potential for scale up and sustainability.

            Theme 5- model potential for scale up and sustainability. This whole process is consistent with and follows guidelines for qualitative data analysis by Merriam [23] and Seidman [24]. No software was used in analysis. Consensus was reached after the three of us went through and agreed on tabulated themes and categories and after verification by participants. The digitally recorded type copies of interviews were kept under password protection for confidentiality purposes and have been deposited with researchgate for public access by researchers and other interested stakeholders [25] (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33809.97124).

Ethics approval for the study was granted by the University of Malawi College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (COMREC) on 12 July 2019 [COMREC # P.04/19/2652]. We conducted our study in full cognizance of ethical principles and statutes guiding research with human participants such as those specified by the Helsinki Declaration and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. We took account of stipulated guiding research principles as: anonymity, informed consent, confidentiality and other such data management and protection issues in methods design, data collection, and data analysis as well as interpretation. Specifically, all participants who assented to participate signed consent forms. Objectives of the study were explained a priori and participants were assured of the confidentiality of their input. No any form of personal identifiers or names were used during interviews to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of input. The participant compensation for time accorded was $ 10. The following section within methods summarizes the RRBM as presented to experts as part of the stakeholder acceptability and model evaluation process.

The risk reduction behavioural model

The Risk Reduction Behavioral Model on which our intervention was grounded (S1 File) as presented to stakeholders for evaluation is an integration of: social-cultural theory [26, 27], socio- learning theory [28], and the theory of reasoned action [29]. The intervention included an information, efficacy [self and interpersonal /social] and skills [coping and practical] building package. This package was modular and complemented with entertainment as recommended by participants in the first situation analysis phase of the study [21]. In the social infotainment package, study participants were involved in formal HIV risk reduction knowledge, skills and efficacy building sessions that also included: drama, song, music, film and role—playing. In each school five sessions spread over a three months intervention period were implemented. Fig 1 below illustrates the risk reduction behavioural model.

Fig 1. The risk reduction behavioural model.

Fig 1

Messages and skills were transferred through the participatory approaches in which the more knowledgeable facilitators played the role of mentors; instilling, cuing and modeling expected behaviours in line with the scaffolding and modeling constructs of socio-cultural and social learning theories. We distributed pamphlets and booklets containing content on modes of HIV transmission, strategies for avoiding or reducing HIV contraction, how to minimize AIDS stigma and discrimination and on general sexual reproductive health. The control group was exposed to a Health promotion and education package based more on the standard-as-usual Life skills BCI regimen already being implemented in all schools. Instead of HIV risk reduction knowledge and skills, they were exposed to malaria and tuberculosis risk reduction and prevention skills. Apart from that they were also exposed to generic Life skills incorporating decision making, assertiveness and self-esteem building. We hypothesized that the intervention would result in positive sexual and reproductive health behaviour. The paper presenting the detailed results for the interventional study published in the Journal of HIV and Social Services [16] was submitted to the experts for evaluation as part of the risk reduction model stakeholder acceptability process.

Results

Informed by the three study objectives: first to assess stakeholder acceptability of the RRBM model, second to determine what modifications need to be done, and third to determine potential for scale up and sustainability; we identified five themes from the semi-structured interviews with participating stakeholders. We present results as they emerged from participants in line with the three objectives and associated themes in this section.

Objective 1—Assessing stakeholder acceptability of the model

Theme 1: Whether model is acceptable or not

There was consensus among stakeholders on the acceptability, potential for scale up and potential odds of sustainability of the RRBM model if implemented. Some of the reasons cited as potentially ensuring acceptability included that: the model is robust, innovative, practical, cost-effective and pragmatic. Stakeholders pointed to innovativeness in design and potential likelihood to be owned by primary adolescent beneficiaries if scaled up to the adolescent population in Malawi. Further, there was mention of the model resonating with adolescent and youth expectations for HIV risk reduction, prevention and skills building. Table 1 below illustrates participant input on acceptability of RRBM model–objective 1 / theme 1.

Table 1. Participant input on acceptability of RRBM model [Objective 1/Theme 1].
Objective 1 Theme 1 Participant input as quoted
Acceptability of RRBM model Theme: whether model is acceptable or not • model is robust, practical, pragmatic and acceptable
• compatible with impact area rural contexts
• model acceptable and a departure from the business as usual mentality
• innovative design and implementation
• cost effective considering that there may be no need for a lot of external resources
• potential to be owned by beneficiaries
• it is a move towards sustainability
• top down design commendable as adolescent primary beneficiaries co-developed model
• addresses issues affecting young people in communities

Objective 2—Areas needing modification

Theme 2: Factors to facilitate implementation effectiveness

In line with objective 2 on areas needing modification we isolated three themes from semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. The first theme being, factors associated with implementation effectiveness. Among the suggested areas were the need to address issues of teacher conservatism that often hamper self expression and open mindedness in adolescent students on issues of sexuality and reproductive health. Participants were also of the view that the intervention needs to be extended to communities and to target out of school adolescents as well. In line with the recommendation one participant opined and we quote:

Out of school adolescents are often at heightened risk but are mostly neglected as most interventions are school-based, this high risk group therefore needs to be targeted as well.’ [stakeholder participant in semi-structured interview]

There was also a pointer in proposing areas for strengthening the intervention in terms of implementation effectiveness to target the rural girl child who according to participant observations is often missed by interventions but bears the brunt of structural pitfalls such as poverty, gender disparities and culture. Apart from the rural girl child, some participants mentioned the need to further consider adolescents with disabilities and special needs who are disadvantaged by being embraced into one-fits-all strategies although they may have slightly differing dynamics. Table 2 below illustrates participant input on areas needing modification–objective 2 / theme 2.

Table 2. Participant input on areas needing modification [Objective 2/ Theme 2].
Objective 2 Theme 2 Participant input as quoted
Areas needing modification Theme: factors to facilitate implementation effectiveness • implementation in schools needs to address issues of teacher conservatism that hampers self expression in students on issues of sexuality
• the intervention needs to be extended to communities and target out of school adolescents as well
• in implementation there is need to incorporate a structural economic youth empowerment component and perhaps vocational training component
• deliberate targeting of girls especially from the rural populations who lack basic needs
• deliberate targeting also of students with disabilities and special needs who are often neglected by one-fits-all approaches
• co-ordination between diverse stakeholders to avoid contradictions necessary

Objective 2—Areas needing modification

Theme 3: Factors associated with youth priorities and needs

The other theme isolated from objective 2 was that of youth priorities and needs. Participants were of the view that in implementation there was need to revisit the Ministry of Education (MoE) position on contraceptives especially on condom distribution in schools. One participant is quoted as having opined:

Although head teachers accept that school dropouts among adolescent girls are high due to teenage pregnancies, they may not want to acknowledge that condom distribution in schools would reduce the prevalence of teenage pregnancies.’ [stakeholder participant in semi-structured interview]

Mention was also made of the need to incorporate in design and implementation modern trends perhaps associated with globalization and modernism driving youth subcultures and dynamics. Youthful trends such as social media, modern technology, pop and hip-hop culture as well as other trends like theatre, the discothèque, and movies were highlighted respectively. Table 3 below illustrates participant input on areas needing modification–objective 2 / theme 3.

Table 3. Participant input on areas needing modification [Objective 2 / Theme 3].
Objective 2 Theme 3 Participant input as quoted
Areas needing modification Theme: Youth priorities and needs • the school through the MoE needs to revisit their position on contraceptives like the condom–Head Teachers not willing to acknowledge dropouts linked to teenage pregnancies can be mitigated through provision of contraceptives in schools
• focus in implementation should be on already existing youth structures handling youth emerging challenges in communities and perhaps lacking youth empowerment and capacity building
• there is need within the nation for local youth platforms and forums for youth to express themselves–we need not look much to international forums like the Barrack Obama Foundation or Nelson Mandela Foundation for inspiration, we need our own youth platforms
• there is in implementation need to focus on modern trends driving youth dynamics like the social media, theatre, movies, music, disco, pop-culture, hip-hop and other global trends resulting from globalization

Objective 2—Areas needing modification

Theme 4: Structural and contextual factors

Theme 4 isolated from participant input on areas needing modification was associated with the need to focus on structural and contextual factors. Participants stressed the need to engage traditional leaders, parents, religious leaders and other gate keepers in implementation and scale up. One participant opined and we quote:

Traditional leaders as custodians of culture should be involved in implementing the intervention as well as parents and religious leaders who are agents of adolescent and child socialization.’ [stakeholder participant in semi-structured interview]

Involvement of these agents of socialization such as the family, the church, and cultural players in intervention implementation was justified by the fact that lack of involvement of these critical agents often impedes successful achievement of outcomes. In line with that, stakeholders also recommended co-ordination between various players who implement interventions. They mentioned duplication of efforts and perhaps contradictions emanating forth as often confusing adolescent beneficiaries. One stakeholder was of the view that:

‘Harmonization and co-ordination of efforts by various players in implementation is necessary to avoid contradictions and duplication of efforts’[stakeholder participant in semi-structured interview]

There was also mention of the need for implementation to commence from primary school. This came within the observation that training and skills building at a tender age might ensure realistic outcomes of the intervention. Table 4 below illustrates participant input- objective 2/ theme 4.

Table 4. Participant input on areas needing modification [Objective 2/ Theme 4].
Objective 2 Theme 4 Participant input as quoted
Areas needing modification Theme: structural and contextual factors • traditional leaders need to be involved in interventions for adolescents and youth as custodians of culture and as likely barrier to knowledge translation,
• parents as primary agents of child and adolescent socialization, religious leaders and other gate keepers also need to be involved
• focus should be on traditions and cultures affecting adolescent HIV risk exposure that need modification
• entry point criteria, should address the knowledge transfer gaps emanating from culture, religion, gender disparities and other structural bottlenecks militating adolescent behaviour

Objective 3—Potential for scale up and sustainability

Theme 5: Whether model has potential for scale up and sustainability?

The last objective was to determine potential for model scale up and sustainability. Theme 5 isolated from the objective was associated with scale up and sustainability consensus among diverse stakeholders centering on model robustness and likelihood to be sustainable if scaled up. Stakeholders viewed the model as context and population specific and hence more likely to be self-sustaining. One participant was of the view and we quote:

The fact that the model sets mindfulness on socio-cultural factors and context in which behaviour unveils gives it a high probability of success, actually it is a move toward sustainability.’ [stakeholder participant in semi-structured interview]

Table 5 below illustrates participant input on potential for model scale up and sustainability—objective 3/ theme 5.

Table 5. Participant input on model potential for scale up and sustainability [Objective 3/ Theme 5].
Objective 3 Theme 5 Participant input as quoted
Potential for scale-up Theme: Whether model has potential for scale up and sustainability? • model robust and has high potential for scale up and sustainability
• contextually driven and has high potential for adaptation into current adolescent programmes
• robust for adolescent skills transfers and practical sustainability of outcomes and impact
• potential for scale up to entire adolescent population in Malawi and could be self-sustaining due to mindfulness on socio-cultural dynamics
• for sustainability, in stakeholder consensus building for scale up and implementation young people ought to be involved
• to guarantee sustainability, during scale up there is also need to begin from primary school because commencing training and skills building at a tender age will ensure sustained impact

Discussion

The study findings are consistent with those in similar studies across sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere [8, 1822] as well as with systematic reviews and meta-analysis [5, 10, 15, 17, 2847]. The current trend in intervention implementation for instance is a shift toward combination options and structural interventions in line with recommendations by researchers and practitioners to incorporate empowerment components in intervention designs [11, 13, 14, 4850].

There was an observation that school-based interventions might lack effectiveness due to factors linked to overall implementation approach. Teachers were cited as needing capacity building to reduce conservatism that many have toward intervention packages or some components of interventions. School based interventions especially those that incorporate the condom have been noted to lack effectiveness due to teacher attitude, ambivalence and disdain [35, 5163]. Stakeholders also cited with respect to contraception, the need for co-ordination at the status quo between the Ministry of Health (MoH) and Ministry of Education (MoE).

It was observed that while the former through guidelines in ASRH encourages and promotes the use of contraceptives among youth including the condom; the MoE on the contrary through its policies on education discourages condom promotion and programming in schools. Muchabaiwa and Mbonigaba [60] in a study conducted in Zimbabwe note that such lack of co-ordination in government policy on contraception might result in some components in interventions playing a deleterious role, with the likelihood of cancelling the effect of the overall combination. To ensure sustainability of the intervention on scale up, stakeholders also cited the need from design, through consensus building and implementation to involve traditional leaders, parents, religious leaders and other social gate keepers. Traditional leaders were recommended as custodians of culture and potential barriers or facilitators to knowledge and skills translation. Parents were recommended for involvement as primary agents of child socialization and religious leaders as potential barriers or facilitators on components like contraception due to moralistic norms.

These recommendations are in line with ecological and socio-cultural models [2628] highlighting the need for multi-level approaches that involve all players at all levels of social or ecological systems in cognizance of social norms, values and other traditional relics in implementing interventions. The observation is also consistent with Mannell et al. [64] Michielsen [65] and Maticka-Tyndale and the HP4RY Team [66] recommendation for interventions to shift from theoretical frameworks focusing on individual risk factors or determinants of sexual behaviour to those focusing on socio-ecological domain. Focusing on individual determinants of sexual behaviour at the expense of socio-cultural or other ecological correlates in communal societies of sub-Saharan Africa has been empirically demonstrated to yield sub-optimal outcomes and to militate against intervention effectiveness [57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68].

There was also mention of the need to incorporate modern trends currently driving youth subcultures and sexual dynamics such as: the social media, modern pop or hip-hop culture, music, movies, the film, the discothèque and perhaps theatre and such other trends emanating from modernism and globalization. Youth in the 21st century cannot be compared to their predecessors in the 70s for instance. Modern technology including the social media and the internet has greatly transformed youth sexual dynamics and youth are globally closer to each other curtesy of the same. Mannell et al. [64] cite norms and relationships among young people as rapidly changing due to the influence of technology and social media. They cite cellular phone use and social media as having increased substantially across Southern Africa for example, creating new spaces for health interventions and social interaction [69, 70]. The need to bear cognizance of the influence of social media during intervention design and implementation for adolescents and young people can therefore not be overstated.

In line with modern trends youthful stakeholders also highlighted the need in implementing and scaling up the intervention to involve youthful mentors and facilitators with the natural zeal, passion and motivation to serve fellow youth. Further there was mention of the need to rely on already existing youth structures in communities that might just need empowerment and capacity building. The need to foster local platforms for youth in Malawi rather than international ones that only target a few young people like the Barrack Obama or Nelson Mandela Foundations was also mentioned. Above all else the need for youth to focus on the impact of interventions rather than on accruing incentives was another striking observation. All these findings underscore the need for innovation in interventions for adolescents and young people to resonate with youth expectations, priorities and needs to ensure long-term effectiveness, impact and sustainability [53, 64, 71, 72].

Strengths and limitations of the study

Our study is one among intervention studies with a component involving seeking input from stakeholders in their capacity as providers, designers and evaluators of programmes on the ground. There is often a gap between research, policy and practice and we endeavored to bridge the gap through this stakeholder acceptability study. Our study being qualitative however had the following limitations. The major limitation was the subjectivity associated with qualitative processes of data collection. In essence, stakeholders in organizations might have been constrained by mandates guiding their projects and programmes especially as envisioned by their funders. Our acceptability assessment may also have been based on personal opinions of stakeholders some of which may lack objectivity, may be subjective and perhaps bias findings.

Conclusion

The study mainly aimed to determine the acceptability and odds of potential for scale up and sustainability of the RRBM model in adolescent sexual behaviour change and HIV risk reduction. Stakeholders had consensus over the acceptability and potential sustainability of the intervention. They also suggested areas that might need modification or improvement. The need to involve traditional leaders, parents and other change agents was recommended. There was also a recommendation for including structural components such as economic empowerment of girls when implementing so as to target distal underlying and root causes of behaviour. Stakeholders also took cognizance of the need for interventions to focus on modern trends driving youth subcultures and sexual dynamics such as social media. Interventions need to be context and population specific and not static to be consistent with global trends as technology continues to bring millennial youth much closer to one another than ever before.

Supporting information

S1 File. Risk reduction behavioural model (detailed description).

(DOCX)

S2 File. Interview guide.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of all the participants involved in this study as well as the organizations and school authorities whose input is invaluable and will go a long way in improving health outcomes for HIV risk reduction among adolescents and young people in Malawi. We also thank College of Medicine for the support they offered. Special thanks to the Research Support Center at College of Medicine as well as the Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme for the advanced postgraduate research methods courses in qualitative and quantitative research methods as well as data analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data is made available here DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33809.97124.

Funding Statement

I would like to notify that the study was funded as part of institutional Staff Development at my work station –Mzuzu University who provided partial funding covering tuition and part of the research.

References

  • 1.UNITED NATIONS. Sustainable Development Goals, Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, Geneva, 2015 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8EZNTTTaX1UJ:https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%2520Agenda%2520for%2520Sustainable%2520Development%2520web.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=mw
  • 2.Malawi Demographic and Health Survey. Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2015–16, 2017 Reference ID: MW1_2015-DHS_v01_M, Year: 2015–2016.
  • 3.NAC. Malawi HIV and AIDS report [2013–2015], Lilongwe: NAC Secretariat, 2015.
  • 4.Malawi Demographic and Health Survey. National Statistical Office, Zomba, 2010.
  • 5.Medley A, Kennedy C, OReilly K & Sweat M. ‘Effectiveness of Peer Education Interventions for HIV prevention in developing countries: A Systematic review and Meta-Analysis.’ AIDS Education and Prevention, 2009; 21(3): 181–206. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2009.21.3.181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bandiera O, Buehren N, & Burgess R. Empowering adolescent girls: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Uganda. BRAC International, Uganda, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Baird SJ, Garfein RS & McIntosh CT. Effect of a cash transfer program for schooling on prevalence of HIV and herpes simplex type 2 in Malawi: a cluster randomized trial. The Lancet, 2012; 379, 1320–1329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dancy BL, Jere DL, Kachingwe SI, Kaponda CPN, Norr JL & Norr KF. HIV risk reduction intervention for rural adolescents in Malawi. Journal of HIV/AIDS Social services, 2014; 13 (3): 271–291. doi: 10.1080/15381501.2013.864173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cluver C, Boyes M & Orkin M. Child focused state cash transfer and adolescent risk of HIV infection in South Africa: a prospective-score matched case-control study. The Lancet, 2013; vol (1), December 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chandra-Mouli V, Lane C, Wong S. What does not work in adolescent sexual and reproductive health: A Review of evidence on interventions commonly accepted as best practices. Global Health Science Practice, 2015; 3(3): 333–340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Baxter C & Abdool Karim S. Combination HIV prevention options for young women in Africa. African Journal of AIDS research, 2016; 15(2): 109–21. doi: 10.2989/16085906.2016.1196224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gallant M & Maticka-Tyndale E. School-based HIV prevention programmes for African youth. Social Science and Medicine, 2004; 58: 1337–1351. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00331-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hankins CA & de Zalduondo BO. Combination prevention: a deeper understanding of effective HIV prevention. AIDS, 2010; Supp 4: S70–S80. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000390709.04255.fd [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Underwood C, Skinner J, Osman N & Schwandt H. Structural determinants of adolescent girls’ vulnerability to HIV: views from community members in Botswana, Malawi and Mozambique. Social Science and Medicine, 2011; 73: 343–350. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Michielsen K, Chersich M, Temmerman M, Dooms T & van Rossem R. Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory? The Theoretical Basis of HIV prevention interventions for young people in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. AIDS Research and Treatment, 2012; vol 2012 doi: 10.1155/2012/345327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mwale M & Muula AS. The efficacy of peer education in sexual behavioural change among school-going adolescents in Northern Malawi: A quasi experiment. Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services 2019; 10.1080/15381501.2019.1620664 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fonner VA, Armstrong KS, Kennedy CE, O’Reilly KR & Sweat MD. School based sex education and HIV prevention in Low-and Middle-Income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9(3): e89692. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rokicki S, Cohen J, Salomon JA & Fink G. Impact of a text messaging program on adolescent reproductive health: a cluster-randomized trial in Ghana, UCD Dublin, Geary WP2017/02 http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2015/AJPH.2016.303562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 19.Gonsalves L, L’Engel KL, & Tamrat T. Adolescent/Youth reproductive mobile access and delivery initiative for love and life outcomes (armadillo) study: formative protocol for mHealth platform development and piloting. Reproductive Health, 2015; 12.67 doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0059-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hearst N & Chen S. Condom promotion for AIDS prevention in the developing world: Is it working? Studies in Family Planning, 2004; 35(1): 39–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2004.00004.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mwale M & Muula AS. The impact of behaviour change intervention [BCI] on adolescent HIV risk reduction in selected schools in Northern Malawi. Afrika Focus, 2020; 33(1): 95–115. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 2011; 38: 65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Seidman I. Interviewing as qualitative research. A guide for researchers in education and social sciences [2nd ed.). New York City, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Researchgate 10.13140/RG.2.2.33809.97124 [DOI]
  • 26.Vygotsky LS. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1979. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(79)90419-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 1982, 37(2), 122–147. doi: 10.1037//0003.066X.37.2.122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fishbein M & Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mwale M. Effects of adolescent exposure to HIV and AIDS behaviour change interventions [BCI] on sexual behaviour change and HIV risk reduction in Northern Malawi, PhD Thesis researchgate, 2021. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20483.94240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Helleringer S & Kohler HP. Sexual network structure and the spread of HIV in Africa: Evidence from Likoma Island, Malawi. AIDS, 2007; 21(17):2323–2332. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328285df98 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hayes R, Kapiga S, Padian N, McCormack S & Wasserheit J. HIV prevention research: taking stock and the way forward. AIDS, 2010; 24: 81–92. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000390710.04255.2b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Peduzzi P, Henderson W, Hartigan P and Lavori P. Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Epidemiologic Review, 2002; 24(1): 26–38. doi: 10.1093/epirev/24.1.26 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Smith KP & Watkins SC. Perception of risk and strategies for prevention: responses to HIV/AIDS in rural Malawi. Social Science and Medicine, 2005; 60: 649–660. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kirby DB, Obasi AI, Laris BA. The effectiveness of sex education and HIV education interventions in schools in developing countries. World Health Organization Technical Report Series, 2006; 938: 103–150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kirby D. The impact of Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex and STD/HIV Education programs on Adolescent sexual behavior. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,2008; 5(3): 18–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Baptiste DR & Bhana EA. Community collaboration youth-focused HIV/AIDS prevention in South Africa and Trinidad. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2006; 31(9): 905–916. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsj100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Toska E, Pantelic M, Meinck F, Keck K, Haghighat R & Cluver L. Sex in the shadow of HIV: A Systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, and interventions to reduce sexual risk-taking among HIV-positive adolescents and youth in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS ONE, 2017; 10.1371/journal.pone.0178106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hallet TB, Gregson S, Lewis JJC, Lopman BA & Garnett GP. Behaviour change in generalized HIV epidemics: impact of reducing cross-generational sex and delaying age at sexual debut. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2007; 83: 150–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Coates TJ, Richter L, Caceres C. Behavioural strategies to reduce HIV transmission: how to make them work better. The Lancet, 2008; 372 (9637): 36–51. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60886-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Paul-Ebhohinhen V, Poobalm A, & van Teijlinge E. A systematic review of school-based sexual health interventions to prevent STI/HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health,2008; 8(4): 231–256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ross DA. Behavioural interventions to reduce HIV risk: what works? AIDS, 2010; 24: 4–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Napierala-Mavedzenge SM, Doyle AM & Ross DA. HIV Prevention in young people in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2011; 49(6): 568–586. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Swartz S &Deutstsch C. Measuring change in vulnerable adolescents: findings from a peer education evaluation in South Africa. SAHARA Journal,2012; 9(4): 242–254. doi: 10.1080/17290376.2012.745696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stokl H, Karlra N, Jacobi J & Watts C. Is early sexual debut a risk factor for HIV infection among women in sub-Saharan Africa? A systematic review. Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 2013; Supp (1): 27–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Idele P, Gillespie A, Porth T, Suzuki C, Mahy M & Kasedde S. Epidemiology of HIV and AIDS among adolescents: current status, inequities, and data gaps. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,2014; 66(2): S144–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rink A & Wong-Grunwald R. How effective are HIV behaviour change interventions? Experimental evidence from Zimbabwe. Journal of Development Effectiveness. 2017; http://www.doi.10.1080/19439342.2017.1327880 30363912 [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Blankenship KS, Friedman SR, Dworkin S, Mantell JE. Structural Interventions: concepts, challenges and opportunities for research. Journal of Urban Health,2006; 83, 59–72. doi: 10.1007/s11524-005-9007-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Luiz B.Can [Conditional] Cash transfers contribute to HIV Prevention for Girls? UNESCO, Gender Equality, HIV and Education. Geneva, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Reed SJ & Miller RL. The benefits of youth engagement in HIV-preventive structural change interventions. Youth and Social change, 2014; 46(4): 529–543. doi: 10.1177/0044118X12443372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Maticka-Tyndale E & Barnett JP. Peer Educators: A synthesis of the research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2010; 33: 98–112. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.UNICEF /CAMFED (2016)
  • 53.Fang Yu, Hein NA, Bagenda DS. Preventing HIV and HSV-2 through knowledge and attitudes: A replication study of a multi-component community-based intervention in Zimbabwe, PLoS ONE, 2020; 15(1):e0226237. 10.1371/journal.pone.0226237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Truong J. Peer Education: a viable approach for reaching youth. Baltimore, MD: Global Health Technical Briefs: USAID. 2008. 46. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Clark JS, Friedrich GK, Ndlovu M, Neilands JB & McFarland N. An adolescent-targeted HIV prevention project using African professional soccer players as role models and educators in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. AIDS and Behaviour, 2006; 10(14 Suppl): S77–S83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Marklam CM, Lormand D, Gloppen KM, Peskin MF, Flores B & Low B. Connectedness as a predictor of sexual and reproductive health outcomes for youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2013; 46: S23–S41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Morris JC & Rushwan H. Adolescent sexual and reproductive health: The Global Challenges. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2015; S40–S42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Woog V, Singh S, Browne A & Philbin J. Adolescent women’s need for and use of Sexual and Reproductive Health Services in developing countries. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mwale M & Muula AS. Systematic review: A review of adolescent behaviour change interventions [BCI] and their effectiveness in HIV and AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health,2017; 17: 718. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4729-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Muchabaiwa L & Mbonigaba J. Impact of the adolescent and youth sexual and reproductive health strategy on service utilization and health outcomes in Zimbabwe, PLoS ONE, 2019; 14(6): e0218588 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Bollinger L and Stover J. The potential impact of HIV/AIDS Interventions on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Africa: A simulation exercise for the World Bank. World Bank, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Ross DA & Changalucha J. Biological and behavioural impact of an adolescent sexual health intervention in Tanzania. A community-randomized trial. AIDS, 2007: 21(14): 1943–1955. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3282ed3cf5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Clark MA, Trenholm C, Devaney B, Wheeler J & Quay L. Impacts of the Heritage Life skills education component. Princeton NS: Mathematica Policy Research, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mannell J, Willan S, Shahmanesh M, Seeley J, Sherr L, Gibbs A. Why interventions to preventions to prevent intimate partner violence and HIV have failed young women in southern Africa, Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2019; 22: e25380 http://onlinelibrarywiley.com/doi/10.1002/jia225380/ful [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Michielsen K. HIV prevention for young people in sub-Saharan Africa: effectiveness of interventions and areas for improvement. Evidence from Rwanda. Africa Focus, 2012; 25(2): 132–146. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Maticka-Tyndale E & HP4RY Team. Bridging Theory and Practice in HIV Prevention for Rural Youth, Nigeria. Africa Journal of Reproductive Health [Special Edition], 2012; 16(2): 39–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Laga M, Rugg D, Peersman G & Ainsworth M. Evaluating HIV prevention effectiveness: the perfect as the enemy of the good. AIDS, 2012; 26(7): 779–783. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328351e7fb [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Peltzer K. Early sexual debut and associated factors among in-school adolescents in eight African countries. Annuls of Pediatrics, 2010; 99:1242–1247. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.01874.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Thinyane H. Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computer Education, 2010; 55(1): 406–14 [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Murphy LL & Priebe AE. My co-wife can borrow my mobile phone. Gender and Technology and Development, 2011; 15(1): 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Cowan FM, Pascoe SJ, Langhaung LF, Mavhu W, Chidiya S & Jaffar S. The Regai Dzive Shiri project: Results of a randomized trial of an HIV prevention intervention for youth. AIDS,2010; 24(6), 2541–2552. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32833e77c9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Merson M, O’Malley J, Serwadda D. The history and challenge of HIV prevention. The Lancet, 2008; 372: 47–488. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60884-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Wendee Wechsberg

21 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-17629

Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mwale,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wendee Wechsberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and whether bias issues were considered. Moreover, please provide the interview guide used.

3.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4.Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"The Government of the Republic of Malawi through Mzuzu University funded the study."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5.Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: interesting study in an important public and reproductive health domain that is how to engage stakeholders in the highly sensitive domain of sexual and reproductive health/HIV in an adolescent population. The methodology and the findings are relevant for Malawi but also for sharing with other countries in the region

Reviewer #2: This qualitative study explored the acceptability, sustainability, and need for modifications of an intervention model. The main strength of this article was that implementers and teachers who work in adolescent sexual and reproductive health were interviewed. There were several areas where the article could be improved. The intervention model in which the implementers were asked to react to was not described thus it was difficult to understand what specific aspects of the interventions were found to be acceptable or sustainable. There were several gaps in the methods sections and the themes described did not align well with the quotes. I offer the following suggestions to strengthen the article.

Introduction

- It is unclear what the RRBM is and how it differs from the RRBI. Describe the components of the intervention, the duration of the intervention, the target population, and the specific behaviors the intervention is meant to address

- Examining triability and feasibility were considered part of the purpose of the study but this was not explored in the methods, results, or discussion. The article would be strengthened by grounding the article in concepts from implementation science. Consider using the following article:

o Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and policy in mental health, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

- The section “purposes and objectives” should be cut as it is redundant from the previous paragraph.

Methods

- Page 6: The justification for selecting individual interviews over group interviews/workshops does not need to be included. Cut the following sentences:

o “The choice of the individualized process compared to a stakeholder workshop was considered cost-effective. Above all else individualized interviews allowed input and accorded each stakeholder enough time to appraise the model and intervention comprehensively. In our assessment, this could have been compromised in a workshop scenario due to constraints that arise because of time limitations and perhaps group dynamics.”

- Page 6: Provide more details about the interview process. Where were interviews conducted? Who conducted the interviews? Approximately how long did they last?

- Page 7: Provide more information about the data analysis process. How many people were involved in analysis? How did they reach consensus? Was analysis software used?

Results

- Page 10: The quotes and associated text for theme 2 do not address implementation fidelity. The definition is, “…the degree to which an intervention was implemented as it was prescribed in the original protocol or as it was intended by the program developers (A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Dusenbury et al. 2003; A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. Rabin et al. 2008).” The quotes about the intervention needing to meet the needs of rural and out of school girls and girls with disabilities is closer to the implementation outcome of “reach.” Authors need to describe how teacher conservatism can affect fidelity.

- Page 12: Provide more of a description of “youth priorities and needs.” The quotes included in the table aren’t all aligned with that theme. For example, the quote, “focus in implementation should be on already existing structures in communities but perhaps lacking empowerment and capacity building,” doesn’t seem like a youth priority or need.

- Page 15: The last two quotes in the table more address the theme of sustainability in theme 5.

Discussion

- Page 18: Paragraphs two and three discuss structural and combination intervention approaches, however that was minimally discussed in the results section. Only one quote in table 2 describes the need for structural interventions. Cut those paragraphs.

- Page 21: The first strength that this study is one of the few studies that includes stakeholder involvement can be tempered a little bit. There are many studies that involve stakeholder interviews.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 19;16(10):e0258527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258527.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Feb 2021

Dear Editor/(s)

Thank you for the decision for us to revise our article # PONE-D-20-17629 – title, ‘Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behaviour change in Northern Malawi’.

We have compiled our revisions beginning with those associated with PLOS One requirements and followed by revisions on queries raised by reviewers. In our rebuttal we first outline the query raised by either editor or reviewer and present its associated response as follows:

Revisions – Editorial PLOS One requirements

1. Query – Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’S style requirements including those for file naming:

Response – Formatting of manuscript main body, files, title and author affiliations done in line with PLOS One guidelines.

2. Query - When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guideline. Moreover, please provide the interview guide used

Response – COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative results have been adhered to in line with - [Tong A, Sainsbury P & Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2007; 19(6): 349 – 357]. The interview guide has been included as a supporting file – SI File. File 1 Title- Interview guide.

\\

3. Query - In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found …..

Response – Minimal data set has been deposited in draft with Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) – University of Syracuse, and can be accessed at https://doi.org.10.5064/F6RGY6T3

4. Query – We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgements section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement.

Please include your amended statement within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response- Funding related text has been removed from any section in the manuscript and has been instead included in the cover letter.

5. Query – Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Response – The ethics statement has been included only in the Methods section and removed from declarations section with the entire declarations section removed.

Revisions – Reviewer comments

Introduction

1. Query - It is unclear what the RRBM is and how it differs from the RRBI. Describe the components of the intervention, the duration of the intervention, the target population, and the specific behaviours the intervention is meant to address.

Response – The RRBM intervention has been presented as a separate sub-section in the methods with title, ‘The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents’ - (pages: 10-17)

Components of the intervention as it was tested for efficacy, the duration of the intervention, the target population and the specific behaviours model was meant to address are presented in another sub-section of the methods, title – ‘The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer education intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi’ - (pages: 18-19)

2. Query – Examining triability and feasibility were considered part of the purpose of the study but this was not explored in the methods, results or discussion. The article would be strengthened by grounding the article in concepts from ‘Implementation science’. Consider using Proctor E et al (2011).

Response – As recommended and in line with concepts from ‘Implementation science’ – Proctor et al (2011); the concepts triability and feasibility have been removed from manuscript - (pages: 2 & 3) and the same also applies to replacing the concept fidelity with the concept effectiveness in the results section (page – 22).

Methods

3. Query – Page 6 – The justification for selecting individual interviews over group interviews /workshop does not need to included. Cut the following sentence, ‘The choice of the individualized process compared …….’

Response – The sentence per se has been removed as recommended (page 6).

4. Query – Page 6 – Provide more details about the interview process. Where were interviews conducted? Who conducted the interviews? Approximately how did they last?

Response – Details about the interview process have been presented as recommended; including where interviews were conducted, the interviewer and duration (page 7)

5. Query – Page 7 - Provide more information about the data analysis process. How many people were involved in analysis? How did they reach consensus? Was analysis software used?

Response – As recommended, information about the data analysis process; including number of people involved, how consensus was reached, and whether software was used has been presented on (page 8).

Results

6. Query – Page 10 – The quotes and associated text for Theme 2 do not address implementation fidelity as defined in Rabin et al (2008).

Response – The concept ‘fidelity’ has been replaced by the concept ‘effectiveness’ in associated text for Theme 2 to align with intended objective (page 22 & 32).

7. Query – The quotes about the intervention needing to meet the needs of rural and out of school girls and girls with disabilities is closer to the implementation outcome of ‘reach’. Authors need to describe how teacher conservatism can affect fidelity.

Response – Point was taken and addressed with the replacement of the concept fidelity with the concept effectiveness as highlighted in 6 above.

8. Query – Page 12 – Provide more of description of ‘youth priorities and needs’. The quotes included in the table aren’t all aligned with that theme for example, the quote, ‘focus in implementation should be on already existing structures in communities but perhaps lacking empowerment and capacity building’ doesn’t seem like a youth priority or need.

Response – The quote and other sections have been qualified with the concept youth as intended where necessary to align with the theme and objective and revised as follows:

‘focus in implementation should be on already existing youth structures in communities but perhaps lacking youth empowerment and capacity building’ (page 24 & 25).

9. Query – The last two quotes in the table more address the theme of sustainability in Table 5.

Response – The quotes per se have been moved to the theme of sustainability in previously Table 5, but now Table 6 (page 29).

Discussion

10. Query – Page 18 – Paragraphs two and three discuss structural and combination intervention approaches, however that was minimally discussed in the results section. Only one quote in Table 2 describes the need for structural interventions. Cut those paragraphs.

Response – The paragraphs on structural and combination interventions have been removed as recommended (page 30 – highlighted).

11. Query – The first strength that this study is one of the few studies that include stakeholder involvement can be tampered a little bit. There are many studies that involve stakeholder interviews.

Response – The statement has been revisited as follows: ‘Our study is one among intervention studies with a component involving seeking input from stakeholders …’ (page 33 - highlighted)

We hope the responses cover all the queries raised in the review.

Regards,

Marisen Mwale

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS One_ Responses to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Brian C Zanoni

20 Sep 2021

PONE-D-20-17629R1Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern MalawiPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mwale,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 The authors have sufficiently responded to the reviewers comments. However, the section "The RRBM as an alternative model..." is too long and detracts from the overall manuscript. Reviewer #1 has suggested cutting this section. As an alternative, the authors could reduce this to a single paragraph and include the remainder as a supplement. This would significantly improve the manuscript's focus and flow. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Brian C. Zanoni, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors have sufficiently responded to the reviewers comments. However, the section "The RRBM as an alternative model..." is too long and detracts from the overall manuscript. Reviewer #1 has suggested cutting this section. As an alternative, the authors could reduce this to a single paragraph and include the remainder as a supplement. This would significantly improve the manuscript's focus and flow.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have carefully read the paper as well as the responses to earlier comments and questions that have been well addressed in my view. No additional issues to be raised; interesting paper, well written

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. The manuscript is much improved and the majority of my comments have been addressed. One area that needs to be revised is in the description of the RRBM. While it was helpful to read a description, it was quite long. The section titled, "The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer-education

intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi" provides sufficient detail. Rename that section "Risk Reduction Behavioral Model." Cut the section "The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents" on pages 10-17.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Marleen Temmerman, Aga Khan University, Nairobi Kenya

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 19;16(10):e0258527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258527.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Sep 2021

Dear Editor/(s)

Thank you for the decision for us to revise our article # PONE-D-20-17629R1 – title, ‘Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behaviour change in Northern Malawi’.

We have compiled our revisions beginning with those associated with PLOS One requirements and followed by revisions on queries raised by reviewers. In our rebuttal we first outline the query raised by either editor or reviewer and present its associated response as follows:

Revisions – Editorial PLOS One requirements

1. Query – Please review your references list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes in the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Response – References have been revised as recommended. Reference 61 has been swapped with reference 26 to suit the link of socio-ecological and socio-cultural models (citations 26, 27 and 28) as adapted in the paper (page 40).

2. Query - The authors have sufficiently responded to the reviewer comments. However, the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model …’ is too long and detracts from the overall manuscript. Reviewer # 1 has suggested cutting this section. As an alternative, the authors could reduce this to a single paragraph and include the remainder as a supplement. This would significantly improve the manuscript focus and flow.

Response – As recommended by the reviewer, the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model ….’ Has been cut and the content has been retained as an additional supplementary file 1 (S1 File 1. Title – The Risk reduction behavioural model).

Revisions – Reviewer comments

1. Query – The manuscript is much improved and the majority of my comments have been addressed. One area that needs to be revised is in the description of the RRBM. While it was helpful to read a description, it was quiet long. The section titled, ‘The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer-education intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi’ provides sufficient detail. Rename that section ‘The Risk Reduction Behavioural Model.’ Cut the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents’.

Response – As recommended by Reviewer # 2, the section titled ‘The RRBM model as tested for efficacy through a peer-education intervention with adolescent participants in Northern Malawi’ has been renamed to ‘The Risk Reduction Behavioural Model’ with a bit of revisions (pages 10 - 11).

Additionally the section ‘The RRBM as an alternative model for HIV risk reduction among adolescents’ has been cut as recommended and the content thereof included as a detailed description of the risk reduction model in supplementary file 1 (S1 File 1. Title – The risk reduction behavioural model).

We hope the responses cover all the queries raised in the review.

Regards,

Marisen Mwale

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS One_ Responses to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Brian C Zanoni

30 Sep 2021

Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi

PONE-D-20-17629R2

Dear Dr. Mwale,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Brian C. Zanoni, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised manuscript is suitable for publications.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Brian C Zanoni

8 Oct 2021

PONE-D-20-17629R2

Stakeholder acceptability of the risk reduction behavioural model [RRBM] as an alternative model for adolescent HIV risk reduction and sexual behavior change in Northern Malawi

Dear Dr. Mwale:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Brian C. Zanoni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Risk reduction behavioural model (detailed description).

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS One_ Responses to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS One_ Responses to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data is made available here DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33809.97124.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES