The complex business of adapting effective interventions to new populations: An urban to rural transfer
Abstract
Purpose To assess the effectiveness of a relatively unaltered version of a sexual risk reduction intervention previously shown to be effective among urban youth, "Original Focus on Kids" (OFOK), compared with a version modified for West Virginia (WVFOK) and a control condition (training in environmental conservation), in altering protective sexual behaviors and perceptions among rural, Appalachian youth.Subjects Nine hundred ninety-nine youth aged 12 to 16 years from 12 rural counties in West Virginia.Method Randomized, controlled, longitudinal trial of a theory-based prevention intervention. Outcomes were self-reported sexual behaviors and perceptions assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months postintervention.Results Both WVFOK and OFOK positively affected perceptions of abstinence but not behaviors. OFOK significantly enhanced some perceptions of condom use compared with both control youth and WVFOK youth, but again, not behaviors.Conclusions Overall, neither version was as effective as FOK had been in the original urban setting. The less altered version (OFOK) was more effective, especially with regard to condom-use perceptions, in this new population and cultural setting than the more culturally altered version (WVFOK). In several of the implementation settings, neither version was delivered as intended by the researchers because of logistic issues. Although many of these changes were seemingly minor, such deviations may have significant impact on intervention effect.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other studies suggest that certain types of adaptation decrease the benefits associated with the intervention.
“Some research suggests that adaptation is likely necessary to promote sustainability (7, 8, 23), although other studies suggest that certain types of adaptation decrease the benefits associated with the intervention (68, 128).”
From The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care (2018) · cites this paper as [128]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Stanton, B., Guo, J., Cottrell, L., Galbraith, J., Li, X., Gibson, C., Pack, R., Cole, M., Marshall, S., & Harris, C.
- Affiliations
- Wayne State University (US)
- West Virginia University (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stanton, Bonita
- Venue
- Journal of Adolescent Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163
- ISSN
- 1054-139X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2126412218
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 12.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Adolescent Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Virginia Department of Education
- West Virginia University
- National Institutes of Health
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH61761, R01MH061761)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Health and Behaviors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- sexual risk reduction interventions, intervention adaptation, rural youth, adolescent sexual behavior, intervention fidelity, implementation fidelity, West Virginia
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Attitude to Health, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Risk-Taking, Rural Population, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Abstinence, Urban Population, West Virginia, Treatment Outcome, Condoms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review