Preparing to Run Effective Prevention (PREP)

November 7, 2018 updated by: RAND
Young people can engage in a variety of negative behaviors-such as drug use, underage drinking, and premarital sex-that exact a high toll on local communities. These activities are often the target of community-based prevention efforts. Getting To Outcomes (GTO) is an approach that includes a toolkit, technical assistance, and training, organized around a 10-step process, that helps communities plan, implement, and evaluate the impact of their programs that attempt to prevent these negative behaviors. This study will examine the degree to which Getting To Outcomes helps Boys and Girls Clubs implement an evidence based drug prevention program.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

As a nation, the U.S. invests heavily in community-based organizations to conduct interventions, proven through research, to reduce the high rates of alcohol and drug use among teens. Much less is invested in helping communities implement these programs with quality. Although many evidence-based programs exist to address alcohol and drug use, communities face difficulty implementing them and achieving the same outcomes as researchers. This "gap" is because resources are limited, prevention is complex, and communities often lack the capacity-or the knowledge, attitudes, and skills-needed to implement "off the shelf" programs well. Common ways to bridge this gap, such as information dissemination, fail to change practice or outcomes at the local level in part because it does not sufficiently address capacity of community practitioners. Therefore, building a community's capacity is a method that could improve the quality of implementation and outcomes. Getting To Outcomes (GTO) is an implementation support intervention shown to improve the capacity of practitioners to conduct evidence-based programs, but its impact on fidelity and youth outcomes has not been studied. The study-Preparing to Run Effective Prevention (PREP)-will be a cluster randomized controlled trial using primary data from middle school youth (990) and program staff from 33 cooperating Boys and Girls Clubs sites (Sites) to assess how GTO impacts the fidelity, outcomes, and costs of an evidence-based program to prevent alcohol and drug use (Project CHOICE, PC). All 33 sites will receive training in PC. 16 Sites will conduct PC in a way typical of community-based organizations (PC only); 17 Sites will conduct PC augmented by GTO, comprised of training, onsite technical assistance, and a written GTO manual. The study will: (1) Assess the use of GTO and compare Sites' capacity between PC+GTO and PC only; (2) Compare PC fidelity between PC+GTO and PC only groups; (3) Compare alcohol and marijuana outcomes of middle-school youth in the PC+GTO (n=510) and PC only (n=480) groups; and (4) Assess the cost-effectiveness of GTO' impact. To address these aims we will collect data on the delivery and utilization of GTO (e.g., method of delivery, duration, topics); staff capacity to implement research-based interventions; observations of program delivery (fidelity monitoring); youth participants' use of, and attitudes towards, alcohol and marijuana via a survey at baseline and 3 and 6 months follow-up; and costs of both PC alone and PC+GTO. Analyses will examine differences between intervention (PC+GTO) and control (PC only) Sites' capacity, PC fidelity, outcomes, and costs over time, accounting for clustering within site. The PREP study could expand implementation research and serve as a model for how the government and other agencies support strong implementation of evidence-based programs in a wide array of domains. These outcomes are important to providing opportunities for youth to become healthy and productive adults.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
990

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • California
      • Buena Park, California, United States, 90620
        • BGC of Buena Park
      • Burbank, California, United States, 91504
        • BGC of Burbank and Greater E Valley
      • Carson, California, United States, 90810
        • BGC of Carson
      • Harbor City, California, United States, 90710
        • BGC of South Bay
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 90022
        • BGC of East LA
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 90037
        • Challengers Boys and Girls Club
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 90063
        • Salesian BGC
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 90401
        • BGC of Santa Monica
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 91303
        • BGC of West Valley
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 91744
        • East Valley Boys and Girls Club
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 92703
        • BGC of Santa Ana
      • San Pedro, California, United States, 90731
        • BGC of LA Harbor
      • Stanton, California, United States, 90680
        • BGC Stanton
      • Westminster, California, United States, 92683
        • BGC of Westminster
      • Whittier, California, United States, 90602
        • BGC of Whittier

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

10 years to 14 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Youth participants

Inclusion Criteria:

Age 10-14 and attends a participating boys and girls club

Exclusion Criteria:

Younger than 10, older than 14, does not attend a participating boys and girls club

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Project CHOICE + Getting To Outcomes
Boys and Girls Club sites will receive a) training and materials for Project CHOICE and b) training, ongoing technical assistance for two years, and materials for Getting To Outcomes
Behavioral: Getting To Outcomes
These sites will receive written materials, training, and on site technical assistance to use the Getting To Outcomes process to implement Project CHOICE at their sites.
Behavioral: Project CHOICE
Sites will receive standard training for Project CHOICE.
Active Comparator: Project CHOICE only
Boys and Girls Club sites will receive a) training and materials for Project CHOICE
Behavioral: Project CHOICE
Sites will receive standard training for Project CHOICE.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Drug use
Time Frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months
initiation and past month prevalence of alcohol use, marijuana use, perceptions of their friends' use of alcohol and marijuana, and resistance self-efficacy
Baseline, 3 months, 6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Fidelity
Time Frame: Each site will implement the 5 sessions of Project Choice twice (one time a year, for two years). In each year, we will collect fidelity data on two of the five sessions, for a total of 4 sessions rated over the two year period, for each site.
(1) Adherence - local data collectors will rate how closely BGC staff adhered to the protocol as designed. (2) Dosage - BGC staff will record attendance of each participant (noting late arrivals/early leavers) and number minutes spent teaching each module. (3) Quality of delivery - Local data collectors will audio record visited sessions and send recordings to be rated by trained raters on the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale 3.1 (MITI).
Each site will implement the 5 sessions of Project Choice twice (one time a year, for two years). In each year, we will collect fidelity data on two of the five sessions, for a total of 4 sessions rated over the two year period, for each site.
Capacity
Time Frame: Annually for the first four years
We will use the Capacity Interview to assess BGC staff capacity to conduct high-quality programming. Capacity ratings are made at the program level since programs operate as a unit. The ratings are made using a structured interview with key program personnel. The Capacity Interview has 14 items ("components") tied to each of the ten steps of the GTO model, averaging to a Total Score. Each component has seven responses, described with specific observable behaviors, ranging from "highly faithful" to "highly divergent" from ideal prevention practice.
Annually for the first four years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
RAND

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Matthew Chinman, PhD, RAND

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
September 1, 2013

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
February 1, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
September 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
May 6, 2014

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
May 8, 2014

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
May 12, 2014

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
November 8, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
November 7, 2018

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
November 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • R01AA022353 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings