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.

Secondary distress in violence researchers: a randomised trial of the effectiveness of group debriefings.

BACKGROUND: Secondary distress including emotional distress, vicarious trauma (VT) and secondary traumatic stress (STS) due to exposure to primary trauma victims have been described in helping professionals and in violence researchers. To our knowledge, there are few prevalence studies, and no tailored interventions have been tested to reduce secondary distress in violence researchers. The study aims to (1) describe the epidemiology of secondary distress experienced by violence researchers; to (2) assess the effectiveness of group debriefings in mitigating secondary distress; to (3) assess risk and protective factors. METHODS: We conducted an un-blinded, individually randomised trial with parallel assignment. Eligible participants were 59 Ugandan researchers employed by the Good Schools Study to interview children who experienced violence in a district of Uganda. Fifty-three researchers agreed to participate and were randomly allocated. The intervention group (n = 26) participated in three group debriefings and the control group (n = 27) in three leisure sessions (film viewings). The primary outcome was change in levels of emotional distress (SRQ-20); secondary outcomes were levels of VT and STS at end-line. A paired t-test assessed the difference in mean baseline and end-line emotional distress. Un-paired t-tests compared the change in mean emotional distress (baseline vs. end-line), and compared levels of VT and STS at end-line. Separate logistic regression models tested the association between end-line emotional distress and a-priori risk or protective factors. RESULTS: Baseline and end-line levels of emotional distress were similar in control (p = 0.47) and intervention (p = 0.59) groups. The superiority of group debriefing over leisure activities in lowering levels of emotional distress in the intervention group (n = 26; difference in SRQ-20 = 0.23 [SD = 2.18]) compared to the control group (n = 26; difference in SRQ-20 = 0.23 [SD = 1.63]) could not be detected (p = 1). In regression analysis (n = 48), baseline distress increased the odds of end-line distress (OR = 16.1, 95%CI 2.82 to 92.7, p = 0.002). Perceived organisational support (OR = 0.09, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.69, p = 0.02) and belief in God (OR = 0.21, 95%CI 0.03 to 1.26, p = 09) was protective against end-line distress. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that violence researchers experienced elevated emotional distress after doing violence research. There was no difference between group debriefings and leisure activities in reducing distress in our sample. However, the hypotheses presented should not be ruled out in other violence research settings. Our findings suggest that organisational support is a significant protective factor and belief in God may be an important coping mechanism. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT02390778 . Retrospectively registered 19 March 2015. The Good Schools Trial was registered at ( NCT01678846 ), on August 24, 2012.