Table 1.
Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the SEDDI process from the perspective of CHC implementation team membersa
| Mean (SD) | Proportion who agree or strongly agree | |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability | ||
| 1. The guided adaptation support met my approval | 4.33 (1.05) | 93% |
| 2. The guided adaptation support was appealing to me | 4.20 (1.01) | 93% |
| 3. I liked the guided adaptation support | 4.20 (1.01) | 93% |
| 4. I welcomed the guided adaptation support | 4.20 (1.01) | 93% |
| Total scale score | 4.23 (0.98) | N/A |
| Appropriateness | ||
| 1. The guided adaptation support seemed fitting | 4.20 (1.01) | 93% |
| 2. The guided adaptation support seemed suitable | 4.13 (0.99) | 93% |
| 3. The guided adaptation support seemed applicable | 4.33 (0.49) | 100% |
| 4. The guided adaptation support seemed like a good match | 4.40 (0.51) | 100% |
| Total scale score | 4.23 (0.68) | N/A |
| Feasibility | ||
| 1. The guided adaptation support seemed implementable | 4.13 (1.06) | 87% |
| 2. The guided adaptation support seemed possible | 4.07 (1.03) | 87% |
| 3. The guided adaptation support seemed doable | 4.07 (1.10) | 80% |
| 4. The guided adaptation support seemed easy to use | 4.00 (1.00) | 87% |
| Total scale score | 4.07 (1.01) | N/A |
aCHC implementation team members completed a brief web-based survey of 12, five-point Likert scale questions where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither; agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly disagree