Table 1

Process evaluation details including process data, outcome data, data type and source

CFIR and RE-AIM constructsResearch aimProcess or outcome dataData type and source
Outer setting
 School contextual characteristicsWhat was the broad context of the schools in which the SPARX intervention was delivered? (aim 2)School socioeconomic index
School location (metropolitan/regional)
Publicly available information (ICSEA, GPS)
Inner setting
 School organisational characteristicsWhat were the characteristics of the delivery environments (schools)? (aim 2)
What were the barriers and facilitators that affected buy-in, delivery and student uptake? (aim 2)
School size, type, composition, funding
School culture
Implementation climate, relative priority, competing demands, leadership, school counsellor availability and level of support, networks and communication, school culture and climate, school readiness for implementation
Publicly available information (school size, type, funding)
SSPESH (assesses school culture)
Interviews with school staff
Implementation Climate measures (staff and students)
Relative Priority measure
Competing Demands measure
Interviews with school staff
Checklists completed by trial manager
Other administrative data including number of staff allocated to assist with delivery and consent process, level of communication with the research team
 School leadershipHow supportive of delivering SPARX were school principals, deputy principals and executives? (aim 2)Level of support and buy-in from school leadersInterviews with school staff
Individual characteristics
 School staffWhat were the characteristics (including attitudes, beliefs, traits) of school staff supporting the delivery of the intervention? (aim 2)
How supportive of delivery were school staff who were involved on the ground? (aim 2)
Age, gender, current employment, role, etc
Leadership, skills, motivations, expectations, self-efficacy, expectations, time available, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, study buy-in
Demographics questionnaire
Implementation Leadership Scale
Interviews with school staff and study facilitators
 Study facilitatorsHow well did study facilitators attending schools support the delivery of the intervention? (aim 2)Age, employment
Skills, self-efficacy or confidence, motivations and expectations
Demographics questionnaire
Self-confidence measure
Interviews with study facilitators
 StudentsWhat were the characteristics of young people that affected intervention uptake and effectiveness? (aim 2)History of mental illnessReported by year 8 students as part of the online FPS survey
Intervention characteristics
 SPARXWere there any barriers to intervention use? (aims 2 and 3)
What do staff think about the efficacy and advantage of using the intervention? (aim 2)
Technical issues
Evidence strength and quality, relative advantage
Logs of technical issues sent through schools, parents and participants
IT data pertaining to technical problems
Informal feedback provided by schools and research staff attending schools
Relative Advantages measure
Anticipated Benefits measure
Interviews with school staff
Implementation processes
 Normalisation and integrationHow did school staff perceive the implementation processes? (aim 2)Coherence, cognitive participation and collective actionNoMAD
 Fidelity to the implementation strategyTo what extent was the intervention implemented as planned? (aim 2)School delivery of the FP programme, including changes to the planCompleted implementation checklists, emails and feedback forms
Interviews with school staff
Implementation outcomes
 ReachWhat was the extent to which those who were eligible to receive SPARX used it? (aim 1)Proportion of eligible participants who consented to participate; proportion who opened, used and completed the SPARX intervention
Representativeness of the student sample
Administrative data about consent Digital analytic data including usage (app downloads, installs, opens), completion rate (number of modules completed) and time spent using SPARX
Reported by year 8 students as part of the online FPS survey
 UptakeHow many eligible schools participated in the study? Within those schools, how many staff supported the delivery of SPARX? (aim 1)Proportion of eligible schools that were onboarded to the study; proportion of school staff (in intervention schools) who supported SPARX
Representativeness of the sample
Administrative data
Publicly available information about schools and self-report demographic data from school staff
 Acceptability/appropriatenessHow satisfied were participants with the intervention? (aim 1)
How satisfied were school staff with supporting the intervention the FP programme (including SPARX)? (aim 1)
Acceptability/appropriateness of the intervention, expectations
Acceptability/appropriateness of the FP programme (including SPARX)
Reported by year 8 students as part of the online FPS survey
Informal conversations and feedback provided by year 8 students
Implementation Appropriateness measure
Interviews with school study staff
Informal conversations and feedback provided by school staff
Across domains
How might the relationship between the intervention, the staff supporting the programme and context of each school shape variation in outcomes (implementation strength metric)? (aims 2 and 3)
How might the school-level variation (in implementation fidelity and outcomes) affect clinical effectiveness outcomes (eg, self-reported depression)? (aim 3)
What key lessons emerge from this study that can be generalised to the implementation of digital mental health programmes in schools more broadly?
  • The process data and outcomes are mapped onto figure 2.

  • CFIR, Consolidated Framework for Intervention Research; FPS, Future Proofing Study; GPS, Global Positioning System; ICSEA, Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage; IT, information technology; NoMAD, Normalisation Measure Development questionnaire; RE-AIM, Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance; SSPESH, Survey of School Promotion of Emotional and Social Health.