Good School Toolkit-Secondary Schools to prevent violence against students: protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: No whole-school interventions which seek to reduce physical, sexual and emotional violence from peers, intimate partners and teachers have been trialled with adolescents. Here, we report a protocol for a pilot trial of the Good School Toolkit-Secondary Schools intervention, to be tested in Ugandan secondary schools. Our main objectives are to (1) refine the intervention, (2) to understand feasibility of delivery of the intervention and (3) to explore design parameters for a subsequent phase III trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, with two arms and parallel assignment. Eight schools will be randomly selected from a stratified list of all eligible schools in Kampala and Wakiso Districts. We will conduct a baseline survey and endline survey 18 months after the baseline, with 960 adolescents and 200 teachers. Qualitative data and mixed methods process data collection will be conducted throughout the intervention. Proportion of staff and students reporting acceptability, understanding and implementing with fidelity will be tabulated at endline for intervention schools. Proportions of schools consenting to participation, randomisation and proportions of schools and individual participants completing the baseline and endline surveys will be described in a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethical requirements of our project are complex. Full approvals have been received from the Mildmay Ethics Committee (0407-2019), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (SS 6020) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (16212). Results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and shared with public bodies, policy makers, study participants and the general public in Uganda. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR202009826515511.

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.