Responses to Likert items from participants in the post-implementation survey (N = 79), organized by Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains
| . | Pre-training . | Post-training . | Post-implementation . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics of intervention | |||
| Received adequate training to deliver SFH | — | — | 91% |
| SFH led to more smoke-free homes in our 2-1-1 populationa | 78% | 88% | 70% |
| SFH a better resource for callers with a smoker in the home than previous 2-1-1 offerings | 62% | ||
| Easy to adapt to my 2-1-1b | — | — | 62% |
| Without SFH funding, our 2-1-1 would not be able to offer it | — | — | 57% |
| Delivering SFH took too much timea (disagree) | 68% | 77% | 46% |
| Implementation was difficulta (disagree) | 52% | 66% | 44% |
| Similar to other programs delivered at our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Easy to make the SFH a permanent addition to our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Characteristics of outer setting | |||
| SFH not appropriate for callers we getc (disagree) | — | 76% | 52% |
| Callers not interested in SFHc (disagree) | — | 72% | 35% |
| Barriers in lives of callers made it hard to implement SFHc (disagree) | — | 41% | 32% |
| Characteristics of inner setting | |||
| Communication among SFH team members excellent | — | — | 87% |
| SFH seen by 2-1-1 leaders as important to mission | — | — | 86% |
| Delivering SFH fit well with staff’s skills | — | — | 81% |
| SFH consistent with 2-1-1’s mission | — | — | 79% |
| 2-1-1 management responded to concerns about SFH | — | — | 72% |
| Did not have resources needed to be successful delivering SFHa (disagree) | 82% | 87% | 71% |
| Our SFH team had adequate staffing to carry out work | — | — | 67% |
| Research team responded adequately to technical concerns | — | — | 58% |
| Enrollment goals realistica | 60% | 72% | 51% |
| Characteristics of individuals | |||
| Individual skills a good fit for SFH tasks | — | — | 85% |
| SFH staff took personal responsibility for program’s success | — | — | 85% |
| Comfortable screening 2-1-1 callers for SFH eligibilityb | — | — | 75% |
| SFH tasks similar to normal 2-1-1 tasks | — | — | 52% |
| Comfortable recruiting participants into SFHb | — | — | 72% |
| Comfortable delivering SFH coaching interventionb | — | — | 71% |
| Comfortable contacting SFH participants for follow-upb | — | — | 81% |
| Implementation process | |||
| Division of responsibilities for SFH clear to team members | — | — | 85% |
| SFH team was highly coordinated | — | — | 79% |
| Participants were satisfied | — | — | 56% |
| Staff enjoyed working on SFH | — | — | 51% |
| Easy to reach participants for coaching sessionsb | — | — | 6% |
| Easy to reach participants for follow-up interviewsb | — | — | 16% |
| . | Pre-training . | Post-training . | Post-implementation . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics of intervention | |||
| Received adequate training to deliver SFH | — | — | 91% |
| SFH led to more smoke-free homes in our 2-1-1 populationa | 78% | 88% | 70% |
| SFH a better resource for callers with a smoker in the home than previous 2-1-1 offerings | 62% | ||
| Easy to adapt to my 2-1-1b | — | — | 62% |
| Without SFH funding, our 2-1-1 would not be able to offer it | — | — | 57% |
| Delivering SFH took too much timea (disagree) | 68% | 77% | 46% |
| Implementation was difficulta (disagree) | 52% | 66% | 44% |
| Similar to other programs delivered at our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Easy to make the SFH a permanent addition to our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Characteristics of outer setting | |||
| SFH not appropriate for callers we getc (disagree) | — | 76% | 52% |
| Callers not interested in SFHc (disagree) | — | 72% | 35% |
| Barriers in lives of callers made it hard to implement SFHc (disagree) | — | 41% | 32% |
| Characteristics of inner setting | |||
| Communication among SFH team members excellent | — | — | 87% |
| SFH seen by 2-1-1 leaders as important to mission | — | — | 86% |
| Delivering SFH fit well with staff’s skills | — | — | 81% |
| SFH consistent with 2-1-1’s mission | — | — | 79% |
| 2-1-1 management responded to concerns about SFH | — | — | 72% |
| Did not have resources needed to be successful delivering SFHa (disagree) | 82% | 87% | 71% |
| Our SFH team had adequate staffing to carry out work | — | — | 67% |
| Research team responded adequately to technical concerns | — | — | 58% |
| Enrollment goals realistica | 60% | 72% | 51% |
| Characteristics of individuals | |||
| Individual skills a good fit for SFH tasks | — | — | 85% |
| SFH staff took personal responsibility for program’s success | — | — | 85% |
| Comfortable screening 2-1-1 callers for SFH eligibilityb | — | — | 75% |
| SFH tasks similar to normal 2-1-1 tasks | — | — | 52% |
| Comfortable recruiting participants into SFHb | — | — | 72% |
| Comfortable delivering SFH coaching interventionb | — | — | 71% |
| Comfortable contacting SFH participants for follow-upb | — | — | 81% |
| Implementation process | |||
| Division of responsibilities for SFH clear to team members | — | — | 85% |
| SFH team was highly coordinated | — | — | 79% |
| Participants were satisfied | — | — | 56% |
| Staff enjoyed working on SFH | — | — | 51% |
| Easy to reach participants for coaching sessionsb | — | — | 6% |
| Easy to reach participants for follow-up interviewsb | — | — | 16% |
Item included (with different verb tense) in pre-training and post-training surveys and included in the positivity index.
These items were role-specific and thus one of the response options was don’t know/not applicable. Participants choosing that response are treated as missing.
Item included (with different verb tense) in post-training survey and included in the appropriateness index.
Data for pre-training and post-training items repeated at multiple time points is included for participants whose data were included in the repeated measures analyses (n = 68 and n = 71, respectively).
For positively worded items, percentage given is % of people responding positively (agree/strongly agree, comfortable/very comfortable, easy/very easy). For negatively worded items, as noted in the table, % is people responding negatively (disagree/strongly disagree).
Responses to Likert items from participants in the post-implementation survey (N = 79), organized by Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains
| . | Pre-training . | Post-training . | Post-implementation . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics of intervention | |||
| Received adequate training to deliver SFH | — | — | 91% |
| SFH led to more smoke-free homes in our 2-1-1 populationa | 78% | 88% | 70% |
| SFH a better resource for callers with a smoker in the home than previous 2-1-1 offerings | 62% | ||
| Easy to adapt to my 2-1-1b | — | — | 62% |
| Without SFH funding, our 2-1-1 would not be able to offer it | — | — | 57% |
| Delivering SFH took too much timea (disagree) | 68% | 77% | 46% |
| Implementation was difficulta (disagree) | 52% | 66% | 44% |
| Similar to other programs delivered at our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Easy to make the SFH a permanent addition to our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Characteristics of outer setting | |||
| SFH not appropriate for callers we getc (disagree) | — | 76% | 52% |
| Callers not interested in SFHc (disagree) | — | 72% | 35% |
| Barriers in lives of callers made it hard to implement SFHc (disagree) | — | 41% | 32% |
| Characteristics of inner setting | |||
| Communication among SFH team members excellent | — | — | 87% |
| SFH seen by 2-1-1 leaders as important to mission | — | — | 86% |
| Delivering SFH fit well with staff’s skills | — | — | 81% |
| SFH consistent with 2-1-1’s mission | — | — | 79% |
| 2-1-1 management responded to concerns about SFH | — | — | 72% |
| Did not have resources needed to be successful delivering SFHa (disagree) | 82% | 87% | 71% |
| Our SFH team had adequate staffing to carry out work | — | — | 67% |
| Research team responded adequately to technical concerns | — | — | 58% |
| Enrollment goals realistica | 60% | 72% | 51% |
| Characteristics of individuals | |||
| Individual skills a good fit for SFH tasks | — | — | 85% |
| SFH staff took personal responsibility for program’s success | — | — | 85% |
| Comfortable screening 2-1-1 callers for SFH eligibilityb | — | — | 75% |
| SFH tasks similar to normal 2-1-1 tasks | — | — | 52% |
| Comfortable recruiting participants into SFHb | — | — | 72% |
| Comfortable delivering SFH coaching interventionb | — | — | 71% |
| Comfortable contacting SFH participants for follow-upb | — | — | 81% |
| Implementation process | |||
| Division of responsibilities for SFH clear to team members | — | — | 85% |
| SFH team was highly coordinated | — | — | 79% |
| Participants were satisfied | — | — | 56% |
| Staff enjoyed working on SFH | — | — | 51% |
| Easy to reach participants for coaching sessionsb | — | — | 6% |
| Easy to reach participants for follow-up interviewsb | — | — | 16% |
| . | Pre-training . | Post-training . | Post-implementation . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics of intervention | |||
| Received adequate training to deliver SFH | — | — | 91% |
| SFH led to more smoke-free homes in our 2-1-1 populationa | 78% | 88% | 70% |
| SFH a better resource for callers with a smoker in the home than previous 2-1-1 offerings | 62% | ||
| Easy to adapt to my 2-1-1b | — | — | 62% |
| Without SFH funding, our 2-1-1 would not be able to offer it | — | — | 57% |
| Delivering SFH took too much timea (disagree) | 68% | 77% | 46% |
| Implementation was difficulta (disagree) | 52% | 66% | 44% |
| Similar to other programs delivered at our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Easy to make the SFH a permanent addition to our 2-1-1 | — | — | 32% |
| Characteristics of outer setting | |||
| SFH not appropriate for callers we getc (disagree) | — | 76% | 52% |
| Callers not interested in SFHc (disagree) | — | 72% | 35% |
| Barriers in lives of callers made it hard to implement SFHc (disagree) | — | 41% | 32% |
| Characteristics of inner setting | |||
| Communication among SFH team members excellent | — | — | 87% |
| SFH seen by 2-1-1 leaders as important to mission | — | — | 86% |
| Delivering SFH fit well with staff’s skills | — | — | 81% |
| SFH consistent with 2-1-1’s mission | — | — | 79% |
| 2-1-1 management responded to concerns about SFH | — | — | 72% |
| Did not have resources needed to be successful delivering SFHa (disagree) | 82% | 87% | 71% |
| Our SFH team had adequate staffing to carry out work | — | — | 67% |
| Research team responded adequately to technical concerns | — | — | 58% |
| Enrollment goals realistica | 60% | 72% | 51% |
| Characteristics of individuals | |||
| Individual skills a good fit for SFH tasks | — | — | 85% |
| SFH staff took personal responsibility for program’s success | — | — | 85% |
| Comfortable screening 2-1-1 callers for SFH eligibilityb | — | — | 75% |
| SFH tasks similar to normal 2-1-1 tasks | — | — | 52% |
| Comfortable recruiting participants into SFHb | — | — | 72% |
| Comfortable delivering SFH coaching interventionb | — | — | 71% |
| Comfortable contacting SFH participants for follow-upb | — | — | 81% |
| Implementation process | |||
| Division of responsibilities for SFH clear to team members | — | — | 85% |
| SFH team was highly coordinated | — | — | 79% |
| Participants were satisfied | — | — | 56% |
| Staff enjoyed working on SFH | — | — | 51% |
| Easy to reach participants for coaching sessionsb | — | — | 6% |
| Easy to reach participants for follow-up interviewsb | — | — | 16% |
Item included (with different verb tense) in pre-training and post-training surveys and included in the positivity index.
These items were role-specific and thus one of the response options was don’t know/not applicable. Participants choosing that response are treated as missing.
Item included (with different verb tense) in post-training survey and included in the appropriateness index.
Data for pre-training and post-training items repeated at multiple time points is included for participants whose data were included in the repeated measures analyses (n = 68 and n = 71, respectively).
For positively worded items, percentage given is % of people responding positively (agree/strongly agree, comfortable/very comfortable, easy/very easy). For negatively worded items, as noted in the table, % is people responding negatively (disagree/strongly disagree).
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
