Table 1 Assessment of SexHealth Mobile feasibility: constructs, indicators, and measures
Feasibility Construct [25] | Indicator | Measure |
|---|---|---|
Demand (To what extent is the intervention likely to be used?) | Proportion of intervention participants interested in an MMU visit on a SexHealth Mobile Day | Baseline survey item1 |
Proportion of intervention participants completing MMU visits who received on-site contraception | Post-intervention survey item2 | |
Number of additional MMU visits among individuals not eligible for the study (e.g., not within age range, participated in EUC period, already using contraception but interested in other methods) | Study staff field notes | |
Number of individuals (participants and non-participants) who took free condoms and pregnancy tests; number of study participants reporting taking free condoms at MMU visit | Study staff field notes; post-intervention survey1 | |
Acceptability (How do stakeholders react to the intervention?) | Intervention participants’ ratings of post-MMU visit satisfaction and likelihood of recommending to a friend | Post-intervention survey items2 Overall satisfaction: (4-point scale; range: “not satisfied at all” to “very satisfied”) Likelihood of recommending MMU (5-point scale from “extremely unlikely” to “extremely likely”) |
Intervention participants’ ratings of patient-centeredness of MMU provider | Post-intervention survey items2 Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling Survey (PCCCS) [26]: using “top score” (an “excellent” rating on all four items) | |
Intervention participants’ ratings of outreach leader support | Baseline survey item3 Level of agreement that outreach leader supported them in making their own decision (4-point from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree) | |
Recovery center leadership support and cooperation in facilitating implementation | Study staff field notes | |
Proportion of EUC participants who reported they would have used the MMU if it had been available | Post-intervention survey item4 | |
Implementation (To what extent can the intervention be implemented as planned?) | Outreach leader activity in intervention period | Study staff field notes |
Intervention participants’ self-reported interactions with outreach leaders | Baseline survey item1 | |
Acceptability of patient flow, volume, and wait time for all stakeholders | Study staff field notes | |
Ability of MMU/provider to meet needs of patients | Study staff field notes | |
Integration (To what extent can the intervention be integrated within an existing system?) | Overall successes and challenges of integrating recovery and FHQC service systems, including personnel collaboration, scheduling, and facilitating pre-MMU patient procedures (e.g., paperwork, urine samples, implant insertion) | Study staff field notes |