This cluster-randomized controlled trial tests whether a short, standardized disaster-education video improves two psychological precursors of disaster preparedness among senior high-school students in a hazard-prone district of West Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Twelve intact classes at one senior high school will be randomized 1:1, stratified by grade level, either to view a purpose-built audiovisual disaster-education module (approximately 20 minutes, shown twice in a single classroom session) or to view an attention-matched general adolescent-health video of similar length on an unrelated topic. Randomization is at the class level to reduce contamination between students, and the individual student is the unit of analysis. All students in a participating class view the video allocated to that class; a randomly drawn subsample of twelve students per class, 144 in total, completes the study questionnaires.
Two co-primary outcomes are measured in every participant. The first is disaster preparedness belief, measured by the General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale. The second is disaster risk perception, measured by the Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS). Both are collected at baseline before allocation, immediately after the session, and again four weeks later.
The intervention and both instruments are grounded in the Health Belief Model, which predicts that raising perceived threat contributes to readiness to act. An exploratory mediation analysis will test whether change in risk perception explains part of any effect on preparedness belief.
After the four-week assessment, control classes are offered the full disaster-education intervention.
Actively enrolled student in grade X, XI, or XII
Present on the scheduled data-collection and intervention days
Written informed consent provided by a parent or legal guardian, and written assent provided by the adolescent
Able to view the full audiovisual session and complete the study questionnaires
Acute illness preventing participation on the study day
Withdrawal of adolescent assent or guardian consent at any point
Unable to complete the intervention session (for example, must leave before the video ends); such records are retained for the intention-to-treat analysis but flagged for the per-protocol set
Parallel
Audiovisual disaster-education module
BehavioralA purpose-built educational video on disaster preparedness, approximately 20 minutes in duration, developed through a structured instructional-design cycle (needs analysis, learning objectives, storyboard, production, expert content validation withitem-level content validity index \[I-CVI\] of at least 0.78 and scale-level content validity index, average method \[S-CVI/Ave\], of at least 0.90, comprehension pilot, and lock). The defined dose is one viewing repeated twice in the same session, identical for every intervention cluster. An optional fully scripted five-minute debrief may follow. No deviation from this dose is permitted without a documented protocol amendment.
Attention-matched general-health video
BehavioralA general adolescent-health video on a topic unrelated to disaster preparedness (for example, personal hygiene or balanced nutrition), matched to the experimental module for duration, delivery format, room conditions, and facilitator contact time.
Change in disaster risk perception, measured by the Disaster Risk Perception Scale total score
Disaster risk perception measured by the Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS), a 25-item instrument covering five dimensions: exposure and impact, probability, uncontrollability, worry and fear, and vulnerability. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score is the sum of all 25 items and ranges from a minimum of 25 to a maximum of 125. A higher total score indicates greater perceived disaster risk. Higher scores are not inherently better or worse for health; greater perceived risk is the direction of change the intervention is hypothesized to produce, because perceived threat is the upstream component of the Health Belief Model. The estimand is the between-arm difference in DRPS total score immediately post-intervention, adjusted for the baseline score, grade, and pre-specified confounders, estimated in a linear mixed-effects model with a random intercept for class.
Change in disaster preparedness belief, measured by the General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale total score
Disaster preparedness belief measured by the General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale, a 38-item instrument based on the Health Belief Model. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with negatively worded items reverse-scored before summation. The total score is the sum of all 38 items and ranges from a minimum of 38 to a maximum of 190. A higher total score indicates stronger disaster preparedness belief, which is the better outcome. The estimand is the between-arm difference in GDPB total score immediately post-intervention, adjusted for the baseline score, grade, and pre-specified confounders, estimated in a linear mixed-effects model with a random intercept for class.
Retention of effect on disaster preparedness belief at four weeks, measured by the General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale total score
Disaster preparedness belief at the four-week follow-up, measured by the General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale, a 38-item instrument based on the Health Belief Model. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with negatively worded items reverse-scored. The total score ranges from a minimum of 38 to a maximum of 190, and a higher total score indicates stronger disaster preparedness belief, which is the better outcome. The reported value is the adjusted between-arm difference in GDPB total score at four weeks, estimated in the same linear mixed-effects model used for the primary analysis, to assess whether any immediate post-intervention effect on preparedness belief is retained.
Retention of effect on disaster risk perception at four weeks, measured by the Disaster Risk Perception Scale total score
Disaster risk perception at the four-week follow-up, measured by the Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS), a 25-item instrument covering exposure and impact, probability, uncontrollability, worry and fear, and vulnerability. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score ranges from a minimum of 25 to a maximum of 125, and a higher total score indicates greater perceived disaster risk, which is the direction of change the intervention is hypothesized to produce. The reported value is the adjusted between-arm difference in DRPS total score at four weeks, estimated in the same linear mixed-effects model used for the primary analysis, to assess whether any immediate post-intervention effect on risk perception is retained.
General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale subscale scores
Between-arm differences in the six Health Belief Model subscales of the General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to action. Because the six subscales contain different numbers of items, each subscale is reported on a common metric as the mean score of its constituent items, so that all six share a single unit of measure. Unit of measure: mean item score on a 5-point Likert scale. The possible range for every subscale is a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5, and a higher score indicates stronger belief on that construct, which is the better outcome. Each subscale difference is adjusted for the corresponding baseline subscale mean.
Disaster Risk Perception Scale dimension scores
Between-arm differences in the five dimensions of the Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS): exposure and impact, probability, uncontrollability, worry and fear, and vulnerability. Because the five dimensions contain different numbers of items, each dimension is reported on a common metric as the mean score of its constituent items, so that all five share a single unit of measure. Unit of measure: mean item score on a 5-point Likert scale. The possible range for every dimension is a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5, and a higher score indicates greater perceived risk on that dimension, which is the direction of change the intervention is hypothesized to produce. Each dimension difference is adjusted for the corresponding baseline dimension mean.
Indirect effect of the intervention on disaster preparedness belief through change in disaster risk perception
Exploratory mediation analysis estimating the indirect effect of allocated arm on change in General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale total score operating through change in Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS) total score. The indirect effect is estimated using a product-of-coefficients approach with bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals, accounting for clustering by class. The single reported value is the indirect effect expressed in GDPB total score points, with its 95 percent confidence interval. Unit of measure: GDPB total score points, on a scale ranging from 38 to 190 in which higher scores indicate stronger preparedness belief. The trial is not powered for this contrast, so the analysis is exploratory and hypothesis-generating.
Proportion of sessions delivered according to protocol (delivery fidelity)
Delivery fidelity: the percentage of classroom sessions meeting every pre-specified fidelity criterion. Each session yields one binary classification (per protocol / not per protocol), recorded by the facilitator on a standardized fidelity log. A session counts as per protocol only if all criteria are met: the video for the allocated arm was played; it was played in full; it was played twice, as specified for the audiovisual disaster-education module; no interruption occurred and no content was substituted; the facilitator followed the fixed script; and equipment and room conditions matched the standard set-up. The reported value is the number of sessions classified as per protocol divided by the total number of sessions, expressed as a percentage. Unit of measure: percentage of sessions. Range 0 to 100 percent; a higher percentage indicates better delivery fidelity.
Proportion of assessed participants completing the full session
Session completion among participants in the outcome assessment subsample, expressed as the percentage of participants who were present at the start of the session allocated to their class and who remained present until the session ended. Attendance at the start and at the end of each session is recorded on the same standardized session fidelity log. The single reported value is the number of participants completing the full session divided by the number present at the start, expressed as a percentage. Unit of measure: percentage of participants. The possible range is 0 to 100 percent, and a higher percentage indicates better session completion.
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options:
