Cited by 18Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealth Policy Implementation ScienceSmoking Behavior and Cessation

Feasibility and acceptability of a peer provider delivered substance use screening and brief intervention program for youth in Kenya

Open access
Jaguga, Florence, Kwobah, Edith Kamaru, Giusto, Ali, Apondi, Edith, Barasa, Julius, Korir, Mercy, Rono, Wilter, Kosgei, Gilliane +2 more·2023·BMC Public Health

Abstract

Background: Youth in sub-Saharan Africa are at high risk of substance use yet lack access to substance use interventions. The goal of this project was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered, single-session substance use screening and brief intervention program for youth in Kenya. Methods: This was a convergent parallel mixed methods study utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Two trained peer providers administered the screening and brief intervention program to 100 youth aged 15–24 years. To evaluate the implementation of the intervention, we collected quantitative and qualitative data. Feasibility and acceptability were quantitatively assessed using the Dissemination and Implementation Measures. Fidelity was assessed by rating all 100 audio-recorded sessions using a checklist. To obtain qualitative feedback on the intervention, we conducted five focus group discussions with 25 youths and six semi-structured interviews with two peer providers and four clinic leaders. The semi-structured interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Quantitative data was analyzed via descriptive statistics using STATA. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis with NVIVO. Results: The lifetime prevalence of any substance use was 50%. The mean level of acceptability of the intervention from the perspective of the youth was 3.53 (SD 0.15), meaning that the youth found the intervention to be acceptable “a lot” of the time. Mean levels of implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Reach/access, Organizational climate, General leadership skills, and Sustainability) as rated by peer providers and clinic staff ranged between 2.61 (“a moderate amount”) and 4.0 (“a lot”). In qualitative data, youth reported that the intervention was helpful and useful in enabling them to stop or reduce substance use. The peer providers felt that the intervention was easy to implement, while the clinic leaders felt that available resources were adequate, and that the intervention aligned well with the goals of the clinic. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the peer-delivered screening and brief intervention program was perceived as acceptable to the youth and feasible to implement. Trial registration: NCT04998045 Registration date: 10/08/2021.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-023-17146-w

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • BIs can be delivered by a wide range of providers including primary healthcare workers, lay providers, and through digital means.

    “Secondly, BIs can be delivered by a wide range of providers including primary healthcare workers [17], lay providers [18] and through digital means [19].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [12]United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. International standards on drug use prevention - second updated edition. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and World Health Organization. 2018. 58 p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jaguga, F., Kwobah, E. K., Giusto, A., Apondi, E., Barasa, J., Korir, M., Rono, W., Kosgei, G., Puffer, E., & Ott, M.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • AMPATH (KE)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
Corresponding author
Jaguga, Florence
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2023-11-16
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
2254-2254
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388732153
Cited by
18
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (#D43TW009345)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
substance use screening, brief intervention, peer providers, adolescent substance use, feasibility, acceptability, implementation outcomes, intervention fidelity, single-session intervention, Kenya, sub-Saharan Africa
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Counseling, Crisis Intervention, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Kenya, Substance-Related Disorders

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