Feedback tool development and analysis
We created a feedback form for participants to complete after each field testing session, with the option of writing responses or providing verbal feedback. Open-ended questions included the following: 1) What did you like about today’s session? 2) What did not work for you today? 3) What are important things you think we did not cover? 4) Did you like where the group met? How about the time of day and days of the week? 5) Based on these 3 sessions, what will help keep young people coming every month? 6) What other supports should be in place to help young people start and stay on ARVs?In addition, we created a form for team members to observe the faciliator to ensure consistency in intervention content delivery. The first part of this form included ten questions about the content elements of the sessions, e.g., whether the facilitator introduced the agenda, each objective, and the purpose of Yima Nkqo; elicited questions, evaluated current knowledge, and gave information about HIV/ART; and led each activity for the session. These questions had an option to respond “Yes,” “No,” “Partially,” and “N/A.” The second part of this form included 14 questions about the quality of the facilitation, including how well the facilitator appeared familiar with materials, engaged with those struggling to interact, used reflected listening, encouraged interaction between participants, and used open-ended questions. Responses to these questions were on a scale from 1 (poor/never) to 7 (excellent/always). Scores were rated as “High” when all content element questions received a “Yes” and all quality of facilitation questions received a score of 6 or 7. Scores were rated as “Adequate” when all content element questions received a “yes” and all quality of facilitation questions received a score of 4 or 5.Feedback was analyzed using an iterative, rapid-feedback evaluation approach [