ITEMS | CRITERIA | INDICATORS | TOOLS |
---|---|---|---|
1. Did actions go according to plan? | • Compliance with provided protocol • Respect of schedule • Running in intervention and control groups | • Several steps • Step duration • Completion of each step • Measurement of deviation from the protocol | • Protocol drafting • Organization of indicators continuous reporting • Log book • Schedule |
2. Did actions mobilize participants? | • Participation: - Project’s Technical Committee - Beneficiary peers - Teaching peers | • Regular attendance • Representativeness | • Attendance sheet |
3. How did the actions take place in this context? | • Network analysis: - Members from the high school house of students - High-school teachers - Teaching peers - Beneficiary peers - Project’s technical committee | • Network density: number of contacts between members • Centralization: marginal or not based on the member’s role | • Individual meetings with key program actors • 3 evaluations (start, middle, and conclusion of the program) |
4. How were the actions planned with the teaching peers? | • Issues and assets when taking actions • Teaching-peers needs • Relationship with technical committee | • Teaching peers needs analysis (relevance) • Adequacy of means to needs (consistency) • Review of actions | • Interviews with the teaching peers at the end of first year and second year of the program |
5. How can the P2P program induce changes in high schools? | • Changes in the no smoking policy in high schools | • Changes in the high school students environment | • Number of changes • Time-scale change (short term, long term) |