Table 2 Study measures for the feasibility evaluation study: constructs, informants, assessment schedule, and assessment tools (to accompany the SPIRIT figure)
Constructs, informant, & assessment time | Assessment tools/measures |
|---|---|
Multi-level D&I Context (domains listed in Fig. 1) [Time 1] | |
Inner setting &Individual Characteristics (MCH staff, Adolescent reports)): * MCH system characteristics; * Implementer demo & attitude about the EBI; * Family characteristics | Provider Environment Questionnaire Survey [45, 47]; Organization climate/Readiness Questionnaire [47]; EBP Attitude Scale [46]; Family Demographics /Social determinants |
mhGAP/IPT-G Implementation Feasibility Outcomes [Assessed Throughout Implementation Period] | |
a) Fidelity (Staff): Feasibility in implementing mhGAP service delivery model and delivering > 80% of session content in MCH setting; b) Engagement (staff report): Feasibility in reaching the targeted population (adolescent-parent pairs), and maintain high program participation/session attendance; c) Quality of Implementation (adolescent-report): *Acceptability, Appropriateness Usefulness, Satisfaction (of IPT-G implementation procedures and contents); | a: Fidelity Checklists b: Program Engagement, attendance; c. Acceptability, Appropriateness, Usefulness, Satisfaction; |
MCH Mental Health Service Outcomes [Time 1, Time 2] | |
a) MCH service quality (adolescent mothers): patient satisfaction of the integrated mental health & MCH care; b) MCH climate (staff & adolescent report): support, trust, communication about adolescent health; responsive adolescent services. | a: Service quality; b: Organization Climate Questionnaire [47] |
mhGAP/IPT-G trial design feasibility and effect size estimation for mental health & family functioning outcomes [Time 1, Time 2] | |
a) Design feasibility: is the method of RCT feasible in MCH clinical service context b) Estimated size of effect on adolescent mental health (adolescent report); c) Estimated size of effect on family functioning (adolescent & caregiver report): functioning, depression, trauma, adjustment, social support, self-efficacy, stress, family interpersonal communication. | a: % of adolescent-caregiver pairs that are exposed to content of the intervention; % of data collection performed as planned; b:WHO-Disability Assessment Schedule; Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire-9;c: Self-efficacy; Social support; PTSD Patient Checklist-Civilian; Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; Adolescent Interpersonal Connectedness and Conflict Inventory [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55] |