Violence outcomes in later adolescence with the Good School Toolkit-Primary: a nonrandomized controlled trial in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether the Good School Toolkit-Primary violence prevention intervention was associated with reduced victimisation and perpetration of peer and intimate partner violence four years later, and if any associations were moderated by sex and early adolescent: family connectedness, socio-economic status, and experience of violence outside of school. METHODS: Drawing on schools involved in a randomised controlled trial of the intervention, we used a quasi-experimental design to compare violence outcomes between those who received the intervention during our trial (n = 1388), and those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial (n = 522). Data were collected in 2014 (mean age 13.4, SD 1.5 years) from participants in 42 schools in Luwero District, Uganda, and 2018/19 from the same participants both in and out of school (mean age 18, SD: 1.77 years). We compared children who received the Good School Toolkit-Primary, a whole school violence prevention intervention, during a randomised controlled trial, to those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial. Outcomes were measured using items adapted from the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool-Child Institutional. We used mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression, with school fitted as a random-effect to account for clustering. RESULTS: 1910 adolescents aged about 16-19 years old were included in our analysis. We found no evidence of an average long-term intervention effect on our primary outcome, peer violence victimization at follow-up (aOR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.59-1.11); or for any secondary outcome. However, exposure to the intervention was associated with: later reductions in peer violence, for adolescents with high family connectedness (aOR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99), but not for those with low family connectedness (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.6; p-interaction = 0.06); and reduced later intimate partner violence perpetration among males with high socio-economic status (aOR = 0.32, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.90), but not low socio-economic status (aOR = 1.01 95%CI 0.37 to 2.76, p-interaction = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Young adolescents in connected families and with higher socio-economic status may be better equipped to transfer violence prevention skills from primary school to new relationships as they get older. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01678846, registration date 24 August 2012. Protocol for this paper:  https://www.researchprotocols.org/2020/12/e20940 .

Adapting a complex violence prevention intervention: a case study of the Good School Toolkit in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation is a key strategy to extend the reach of evidence-based interventions to prevent violence in new populations, but there is a dearth of practical case examples. The Good School Toolkit was developed by Ugandan NGO Raising Voices for use in primary schools (GST-P). We describe our systematic approach to adapting the GST-P for use in secondary schools in Uganda, and reflect on the utility of the process as well as limitations of existing adaptation frameworks. METHODS: We adapted the GST-P in four phases, which included: I) clarifying the logic model and core intervention components using a streamlined process; II) conducting formative research (cross-sectional survey, focus groups, etc.) to understand the new population; III) selecting and preparing new intervention components and modifying existing intervention components; and IV) pretesting new intervention components with teachers and students in Uganda. RESULTS: We identified core components using a logic model. Formative research showed results largely in line with our apriori hypotheses. Teacher violence remained highly prevalent in secondary versus primary schools (> 65% of secondary students reported past year exposure), while peer violence significantly increased (secondary = 52% vs. primary girls = 40%, P < 0.001; secondary = 54% vs. primary boys = 44%, P = 0.009) in secondary versus primary schools. Significantly more secondary girls (51%) than secondary boys (45%) reported past year dating/intimate partner violence (P = 0.03). Inequitable, gendered educational practices emerged as a salient theme, perceived to heighten female students' vulnerability to violence. In light of these findings, we made several adjustments to the adapted intervention. We strengthened existing teacher and peer violence intervention components. We also developed, pretested and revised new program components to prevent dating violence and promote 'gender fairness in schools'. Finally, original activities were modified to support engagement with school administration and promote increased student agency in secondary schools. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience, it was difficult to apply mechanistic models to clarify the intervention logic of the GST-P, a complex multicomponent intervention, and simpler methods may be sufficient. Our team had high levels of contextual knowledge before the adaptation, and formative research to understand the new target population provided only limited additional insight. In similar situations, a simplified approach to mapping the core intervention components, qualitative research to understand the new target population, and pre-testing of new intervention components may be the most informative elements of systematic adaptation processes.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Good School Toolkit Primary School Violence Prevention Intervention Among Adolescents: Protocol for a Nonrandomized Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Violence against children in schools is a global public health problem. There is growing evidence that school-based interventions can be effective in reducing violence against children in schools. However, there is little evidence on the long-term impact of such interventions. The Good School Toolkit, developed by Raising Voices, a Uganda-based nonprofit organization, is a whole-school violence prevention intervention that aims to change the operational culture of primary schools. In 2014, the Good School Toolkit was evaluated through a cluster randomized controlled trial (Good Schools Study) and found to reduce teacher-to-student and student-to-student violence. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes quantitative analyses to explore long-term outcomes of the Good School Toolkit intervention among adolescents in Uganda, including the extent to which it is associated with peer-violence victimization (primary outcome) and peer-violence perpetration, intimate-partner violence, acceptance of teacher-violence, equitable gender attitudes, agency, self-regulation, peer connectedness, social assets, psychological assets, and retention in school (secondary outcomes). METHODS: This is a nonrandomized quasi-experimental 4-year follow-up study of adolescents who attended the 42 Good Schools Study primary schools in 2014; 21 schools initiated the Good School Toolkit intervention during the trial from 2012, and 19 schools initiated the intervention after the trial (during the later delivery phase) from 2015; 2 schools did not implement the intervention. Students in the final school grade (Primary 7) during 2014 of the 19 primary schools in the later delivery phase are expected to have left school prior to toolkit delivery in 2015. Wave 1 data were collected in 2014 from 3431 grade Primary 5 to Primary 7 school students aged 11-14 years; these students were followed up in 2018-2019 when aged 16-19 years and invited to participate in the Wave 2 survey. Data were collected in face-to-face interviews by trained Ugandan field researchers. Toolkit exposure groups are defined as exposed during the Good Schools Study trial (from 2012), as exposed during later delivery (from 2015), or not exposed including those expected to have completed Primary 7 prior to later delivery or from the 2 schools that did not implement the toolkit. Associations between outcomes at Wave 2 and toolkit exposure groups will be analyzed using mixed-effect multivariable logistic and linear regression models for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. This analysis is exploratory and aims to generate hypotheses on if, and under what circumstances, the toolkit influences later adolescent outcomes. RESULTS: Data collection was completed in August 2019. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first long-term follow-up study of adolescents exposed to a school-based violence-prevention intervention in sub-Saharan Africa. If the intervention reduces violence and improves other outcomes in later adolescence, then this study supports primary school interventions as key to achieving long-term population impacts. The pattern of effects will inform where reinforced or additional interventions are needed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/20940.