Testing a Community-Informed Curriculum to Address Social and Mental Health Needs of Youth on the Galapagos Islands: An Implementation Mapping Approach

Background and Purpose

This study aimed to test a unique community-informed curriculum, a product of collaborative efforts between faculty from the University of San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and local community-based organizations and government ministries. This curriculum, distinct in its design and approach, was tailored to equip local professionals and community members with skills to address youth mental health and domestic violence. The goal was to ensure the curriculum was locally driven, sustainable, and relevant to the local communities and to test it as a pilot for a larger intervention for youth on the island.

Methods

We used implementation mapping, a six-step protocol that guides designing interventions and selecting protocols and expands on intervention mapping. In collaboration, we used the five steps of implementation mapping: 1) Conducted implementation needs assessments and engaged partners to understand who would adopt and use the training. 2) Documented the implementation outcomes and performance objectives. 3) Selected and designed implementation strategies, 4) Developed implementation protocols and materials, and 5) designed an evaluation plan. This was an iterative process, ensuring that we engaged partners. We used a survey via WhatsApp and Focus Group Discussions with partners and participants for data collection.

Results

We present results from each step of the implementation mapping process:

Our results showcase the positive outcomes of each step of the implementation mapping process:

Adoption: Professionals across sectors (hospital, judicial, social welfare, economic inclusion, gender issues) reported using the training in their profession, a testament to the curriculum's relevance and applicability.

Outcomes and performance objectives: instructor performance (84.2% very satisfied (VS), 10.5% somewhat satisfied (SWS)); curriculum content (73.1% VS, 19.9% SWS); and topics covered were applicable and relevant to their occupations, interests, and community needs;

Implementation strategies: instructors were teaching as volunteers and findings indicated that paying them would have been a better strategy, participants reported that more time was required for course delivery, they preferred more hands-on activity to be added to develop skills further, recruitment strategies lacked community participation, faculty collaboration on created curriculum was applauded, delivery of content needed to align with the different education levels of participants.

Implementation protocols and materials: fidelity to training protocols was 90%;

Evaluation: Follow-up evaluation after graduation indicated that participants are using the skills learned, they wanted more skills on personal care as they provide services to others, and more skills working with people with disabilities.

Conclusion and Implications

This study was a testament to the power of collaboration among partners. The use of implementation mapping highlighted intervention challenges that, when addressed, will improve the intervention and will be a product of collective wisdom of community partners. It was tested as a pilot and the findings highlighted structural designs that need improving. These include, alignment of content with education levels of participants, increasing input from faculty and community members, aligning the amount of content and time, and compensating teachers.