Table 3 FRAME summary of adaptations for K-Savvy (N = 32)
n (%) | |
|---|---|
What was modified | |
Context | 12 (37.5%) |
Content | 10 (31.2%) |
Training | 10 (31.2%) |
Who participated in recommending and deciding the modification | |
Participant | 11 (34.3%) |
Trainer | 20 (62.5%) |
Research team | 32 (100%) |
Advisory panel | 11 (34.3%) |
Intervention developer | 8 (25.0%) |
When the modification occurred | |
Pre-implementation phase only | 2 (6.2%) |
Pilot implementation phase only | 25 (78.1%) |
Both phases | 5 (15.6%) |
Whether the modification was planned | |
Proactive change only | 2 (6.2%) |
Reactive change only | 25 (78.1%) |
Both proactive and reactive change | 5 (15.6%) |
Whether the modification was fidelity-consistent | |
Consistent | 32 (100%) |
Inconsistent | 0 (0%) |
Whether the modification was a temporary drift | |
Yes | 3 (9.4%) |
No | 29 (90.6%) |
At what level of delivery, the modification was made | |
Entire target group | 21 (65.6%) |
Specific target subgroup | 1 (3.1%) |
Entire trainer group | 9 (28.1%) |
Specific trainer subgroup | 1 (3.1%) |
Why the modification was made (i.e., reasons, goals, rationales) | |
To improve fit with recipients | 14 (43.8%) |
To improve engagement | 20 (62.5%) |
To improve outcome | 10 (31.1%) |