Table 2
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study ID | Study design and sample | Country and setting | Year | EBI | Sustainment Intervention AND Control | Duration of initial implementation AND sustainment intervention | Final follow-up time point measured AND method of data collection | Primary outcomes of the review | Secondary outcomes of the review | Findings | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chin 2007 [30] | RCT Sample size: 34 health centres 17 intervention 17 control | USA community health centres | 2007 | Dietary and exercise counselling and diabetes education | Multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (clinician implementation team meetings, and audit and feedback) | Initial implementation: 24 months Sustainment: 24 months | 24 months Chart review instrument to review clinical records | % of patients who received: 1. Dietary counselling 2. Exercise counselling 3. Diabetes education | N/A | 1. PO1: 0.24 (OR) [0.08, 0.68] 2. PO2: 0.34 (OR) [0.15, 0.75] 3. PO3: 0.16 (OR) [0.06, 0.44] |  |
| McFadyen 2019 [31] | RCT Sample size: 188 community sport clubs 92 intervention, 96 control | Australia Community football clubs | 2019 | Responsible alcohol management practices | Web-based multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (one phone contact and reactive support provided on an as-needed basis) | Initial implementation: minimum of 12 months Sustainment: three consecutive football seasons over 29 months | 25–27 months after baseline intervention implementation Field observations and Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews | 1. Proportion of clubs maintaining implementation of ≥10 of 13 alcohol management practices 2. Mean number of alcohol management practices implemented at follow-up | 1. Proportion of club members who reported drinking alcohol at risky levels at sporting clubs 2. Proportion of club members who reported being at-risk of alcohol-related harm 3. Mean AUDIT score of club members | 1. PO1: 0.53 (OR) [0.04, 7.2] P = 0.63 2. PO2: 0.1 (Mean difference) [−0.23, 0.42] P = 0.55 3. SO1: 0.71 (OR) [0.45, 1.10] P = 0.13 4. SO2: 1.12 (OR) [0.75, 1.67] P = 0.57 5. SO3: −0.04 (Mean difference) [−0.75, 0.67] P = 0.91 |   |
| Acosta 2020 [32] | RCT Sample size: 29 afterschool programme centres 14 intervention, 15 control | USA afterschool programme centres | 2020 | Afterschool alcohol, cigarette and substance use prevention programme | Getting to outcomes implementation strategy | 24 months | 24 months Field observations | 1. Staff adherence to delivering CHOICE (EBI) | N/A | 1. PO1: 46% of intervention sites continued to deliver CHOICE, compared to 0% of control sites Fishers exact test P = 0.015* |  |
| Study ID | Study design and sample | Country and setting | Year | EBI | Sustainment Intervention AND Control | Duration of initial implementation AND sustainment intervention | Final follow-up time point measured AND method of data collection | Primary outcomes of the review | Secondary outcomes of the review | Findings | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chin 2007 [30] | RCT Sample size: 34 health centres 17 intervention 17 control | USA community health centres | 2007 | Dietary and exercise counselling and diabetes education | Multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (clinician implementation team meetings, and audit and feedback) | Initial implementation: 24 months Sustainment: 24 months | 24 months Chart review instrument to review clinical records | % of patients who received: 1. Dietary counselling 2. Exercise counselling 3. Diabetes education | N/A | 1. PO1: 0.24 (OR) [0.08, 0.68] 2. PO2: 0.34 (OR) [0.15, 0.75] 3. PO3: 0.16 (OR) [0.06, 0.44] | |
| McFadyen 2019 [31] | RCT Sample size: 188 community sport clubs 92 intervention, 96 control | Australia Community football clubs | 2019 | Responsible alcohol management practices | Web-based multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (one phone contact and reactive support provided on an as-needed basis) | Initial implementation: minimum of 12 months Sustainment: three consecutive football seasons over 29 months | 25–27 months after baseline intervention implementation Field observations and Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews | 1. Proportion of clubs maintaining implementation of ≥10 of 13 alcohol management practices 2. Mean number of alcohol management practices implemented at follow-up | 1. Proportion of club members who reported drinking alcohol at risky levels at sporting clubs 2. Proportion of club members who reported being at-risk of alcohol-related harm 3. Mean AUDIT score of club members | 1. PO1: 0.53 (OR) [0.04, 7.2] P = 0.63 2. PO2: 0.1 (Mean difference) [−0.23, 0.42] P = 0.55 3. SO1: 0.71 (OR) [0.45, 1.10] P = 0.13 4. SO2: 1.12 (OR) [0.75, 1.67] P = 0.57 5. SO3: −0.04 (Mean difference) [−0.75, 0.67] P = 0.91 | |
| Acosta 2020 [32] | RCT Sample size: 29 afterschool programme centres 14 intervention, 15 control | USA afterschool programme centres | 2020 | Afterschool alcohol, cigarette and substance use prevention programme | Getting to outcomes implementation strategy | 24 months | 24 months Field observations | 1. Staff adherence to delivering CHOICE (EBI) | N/A | 1. PO1: 46% of intervention sites continued to deliver CHOICE, compared to 0% of control sites Fishers exact test P = 0.015* | |
Note: Arrows indicate direction of effect (positive or negative effect on sustainment) and does not take into account statistical significance. Direction of effect was calculated based on available data reported in each paper. CHOICE = Name of the afterschool substance abuse; EBIPO = primary outcome; SO = secondary outcome.
*Statistical significance.
Table 2
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study ID | Study design and sample | Country and setting | Year | EBI | Sustainment Intervention AND Control | Duration of initial implementation AND sustainment intervention | Final follow-up time point measured AND method of data collection | Primary outcomes of the review | Secondary outcomes of the review | Findings | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chin 2007 [30] | RCT Sample size: 34 health centres 17 intervention 17 control | USA community health centres | 2007 | Dietary and exercise counselling and diabetes education | Multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (clinician implementation team meetings, and audit and feedback) | Initial implementation: 24 months Sustainment: 24 months | 24 months Chart review instrument to review clinical records | % of patients who received: 1. Dietary counselling 2. Exercise counselling 3. Diabetes education | N/A | 1. PO1: 0.24 (OR) [0.08, 0.68] 2. PO2: 0.34 (OR) [0.15, 0.75] 3. PO3: 0.16 (OR) [0.06, 0.44] | |
| McFadyen 2019 [31] | RCT Sample size: 188 community sport clubs 92 intervention, 96 control | Australia Community football clubs | 2019 | Responsible alcohol management practices | Web-based multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (one phone contact and reactive support provided on an as-needed basis) | Initial implementation: minimum of 12 months Sustainment: three consecutive football seasons over 29 months | 25–27 months after baseline intervention implementation Field observations and Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews | 1. Proportion of clubs maintaining implementation of ≥10 of 13 alcohol management practices 2. Mean number of alcohol management practices implemented at follow-up | 1. Proportion of club members who reported drinking alcohol at risky levels at sporting clubs 2. Proportion of club members who reported being at-risk of alcohol-related harm 3. Mean AUDIT score of club members | 1. PO1: 0.53 (OR) [0.04, 7.2] P = 0.63 2. PO2: 0.1 (Mean difference) [−0.23, 0.42] P = 0.55 3. SO1: 0.71 (OR) [0.45, 1.10] P = 0.13 4. SO2: 1.12 (OR) [0.75, 1.67] P = 0.57 5. SO3: −0.04 (Mean difference) [−0.75, 0.67] P = 0.91 | |
| Acosta 2020 [32] | RCT Sample size: 29 afterschool programme centres 14 intervention, 15 control | USA afterschool programme centres | 2020 | Afterschool alcohol, cigarette and substance use prevention programme | Getting to outcomes implementation strategy | 24 months | 24 months Field observations | 1. Staff adherence to delivering CHOICE (EBI) | N/A | 1. PO1: 46% of intervention sites continued to deliver CHOICE, compared to 0% of control sites Fishers exact test P = 0.015* | |
| Study ID | Study design and sample | Country and setting | Year | EBI | Sustainment Intervention AND Control | Duration of initial implementation AND sustainment intervention | Final follow-up time point measured AND method of data collection | Primary outcomes of the review | Secondary outcomes of the review | Findings | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chin 2007 [30] | RCT Sample size: 34 health centres 17 intervention 17 control | USA community health centres | 2007 | Dietary and exercise counselling and diabetes education | Multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (clinician implementation team meetings, and audit and feedback) | Initial implementation: 24 months Sustainment: 24 months | 24 months Chart review instrument to review clinical records | % of patients who received: 1. Dietary counselling 2. Exercise counselling 3. Diabetes education | N/A | 1. PO1: 0.24 (OR) [0.08, 0.68] 2. PO2: 0.34 (OR) [0.15, 0.75] 3. PO3: 0.16 (OR) [0.06, 0.44] | |
| McFadyen 2019 [31] | RCT Sample size: 188 community sport clubs 92 intervention, 96 control | Australia Community football clubs | 2019 | Responsible alcohol management practices | Web-based multi-component sustainment intervention Usual care (one phone contact and reactive support provided on an as-needed basis) | Initial implementation: minimum of 12 months Sustainment: three consecutive football seasons over 29 months | 25–27 months after baseline intervention implementation Field observations and Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews | 1. Proportion of clubs maintaining implementation of ≥10 of 13 alcohol management practices 2. Mean number of alcohol management practices implemented at follow-up | 1. Proportion of club members who reported drinking alcohol at risky levels at sporting clubs 2. Proportion of club members who reported being at-risk of alcohol-related harm 3. Mean AUDIT score of club members | 1. PO1: 0.53 (OR) [0.04, 7.2] P = 0.63 2. PO2: 0.1 (Mean difference) [−0.23, 0.42] P = 0.55 3. SO1: 0.71 (OR) [0.45, 1.10] P = 0.13 4. SO2: 1.12 (OR) [0.75, 1.67] P = 0.57 5. SO3: −0.04 (Mean difference) [−0.75, 0.67] P = 0.91 | |
| Acosta 2020 [32] | RCT Sample size: 29 afterschool programme centres 14 intervention, 15 control | USA afterschool programme centres | 2020 | Afterschool alcohol, cigarette and substance use prevention programme | Getting to outcomes implementation strategy | 24 months | 24 months Field observations | 1. Staff adherence to delivering CHOICE (EBI) | N/A | 1. PO1: 46% of intervention sites continued to deliver CHOICE, compared to 0% of control sites Fishers exact test P = 0.015* | |
Note: Arrows indicate direction of effect (positive or negative effect on sustainment) and does not take into account statistical significance. Direction of effect was calculated based on available data reported in each paper. CHOICE = Name of the afterschool substance abuse; EBIPO = primary outcome; SO = secondary outcome.
*Statistical significance.
