Process Evaluation of a Psychosocial Intervention Addressing Women in a Disadvantaged Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper presents the process evaluation of a community-based randomized psycho-social trial aimed to enhance reproductive and mental health outcomes of disadvantaged women living in the southern suburb of Beirut-Lebanon. Process evaluation of public health interventions involves the monitoring and documentation of interventions' implementation to allow for better understanding of planned outcomes and of intervention effectiveness. METHODS: A community-based randomized trial was conducted. The intervention consisted of 12 sessions (of combined 30 minutes of relaxation exercises and 75 minutes of structured support groups) delivered twice per week over a period of six-weeks. A process evaluation was conducted during the implementation of the intervention. This process evaluation aimed to ensure that the intervention was delivered and implemented as planned, as well as to monitor women's satisfaction and attendance. The main components of the process evaluation included: dose delivered, dose received, and reach. Closed ended questionnaires were administered before/after/during each intervention session. Data was entered and analyzed using SPSS. Analysis revolved around simple frequency distribution for categorical variables and means (SD) for continuous variables. Limited bivariate analysis (using CHI Square and Anova) was done. RESULTS: RESULTS indicated that the delivery, implementation, and reach of the intervention were favorable. Participation was acceptable and satisfaction rates were very high. CONCLUSION: These favorable findings pertaining to intervention satisfaction, reach and participation highlight a number of lessons for future intervention studies in the context of disadvantaged settings. They also support the importance of involving the local community members in intervention planning, implementation and evaluation early on. We believe that the community involvement in this trial directly and significantly contributed to the results of this process evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".