Preparing to Run Effective Prevention (PREP)

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: Completed
• Conditions: Implementation of Evidence Based Programs
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Getting To Outcomes; Behavioral: Project CHOICE

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: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 990
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

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

Eligibility Criteria

• 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

How is the study designed?

Design Details

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

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
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

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Drug use	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

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Fidelity	(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	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

• Sponsor: RAND
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Matthew Chinman, PhD, RAND

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Acosta J, Chinman M, Ebener PA, Malone PS, Cannon JS, D'Amico EJ. Sustaining an Evidence-Based Program Over Time: Moderators of Sustainability and the Role of the Getting to Outcomes(R) Implementation Support Intervention. Prev Sci. 2020 Aug;21(6):807-819. doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01118-2.
• Herman PM, Chinman M, Cannon J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Acosta J, D'Amico EJ. Cost Analysis of a Randomized Trial of Getting to Outcomes Implementation Support of CHOICE in Boys and Girls Clubs in Southern California. Prev Sci. 2020 Feb;21(2):245-255. doi: 10.1007/s11121-019-01082-6.
• Cannon JS, Gilbert M, Ebener P, Malone PS, Reardon CM, Acosta J, Chinman M. Influence of an Implementation Support Intervention on Barriers and Facilitators to Delivery of a Substance Use Prevention Program. Prev Sci. 2019 Nov;20(8):1200-1210. doi: 10.1007/s11121-019-01037-x.
• Chinman M, Ebener P, Malone PS, Cannon J, D'Amico EJ, Acosta J. Testing implementation support for evidence-based programs in community settings: a replication cluster-randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes(R). Implement Sci. 2018 Oct 22;13(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0825-7.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: September 1, 2013
• Primary Completion (Actual): February 1, 2018
• Study Completion (Actual): September 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 6, 2014
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 8, 2014
• First Posted (Estimate): May 12, 2014

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): November 8, 2018
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: November 7, 2018
• Last Verified: November 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: R01AA022353 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)