Effectiveness of an Audiovisual Disaster-Education Intervention on Disaster Risk Perception and Preparedness Belief Among Senior High-School Adolescents
DERAP
1 other identifier
interventional
144
0 countries
N/A
Brief Summary
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.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P75+ for not_applicable
Started Oct 2026
Shorter than P25 for not_applicable
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
August 16, 2026
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
August 24, 2026
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
October 15, 2026
ExpectedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
December 20, 2026
Study Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
January 20, 2027
August 24, 2026
August 1, 2026
2 months
August 16, 2026
August 20, 2026
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (2)
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.
Baseline (Day 1, pre-intervention) and Day 1, within 30 minutes post-intervention
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.
Baseline (Day 1, pre-intervention) and Day 1, within 30 minutes post-intervention
Secondary Outcomes (4)
Retention of effect on disaster preparedness belief at four weeks, measured by the General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale total score
Baseline (Day 1) and Week 4
Retention of effect on disaster risk perception at four weeks, measured by the Disaster Risk Perception Scale total score
Baseline (Day 1) and Week 4
General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale subscale scores
Baseline (Day 1), Day 1 post-intervention, and Week 4
Disaster Risk Perception Scale dimension scores
Baseline (Day 1), Day 1 post-intervention, and Week 4
Other Outcomes (3)
Indirect effect of the intervention on disaster preparedness belief through change in disaster risk perception
Baseline (Day 1), Day 1 post-intervention, and Week 4
Proportion of sessions delivered according to protocol (delivery fidelity)
Day 1
Proportion of assessed participants completing the full session
Day 1
Study Arms (2)
Audiovisual disaster-education module
EXPERIMENTALClasses allocated to this arm receive, in a single standardized classroom session, a purpose-built audiovisual disaster-education module of approximately 20 minutes, played twice consecutively, optionally followed by a fully scripted five-minute facilitator debrief in which each student names one personal preparedness action. Content blocks cover the definition of disaster, how disasters occur, impacts and risks, benefits of preparedness, personal preparation steps, barriers and misconceptions, social and environmental roles, self-efficacy, environmental knowledge, and a closing call to action, each mapped to a Health Belief Model construct. Delivery is standardized (identical file, equipment, and room set-up) by a trained facilitator following a fixed script and completing a fidelity checklist.
Attention-matched general-health video
ACTIVE COMPARATORClasses allocated to this arm receive, in an equivalent session of similar length and under identical conditions, a general adolescent-health video unrelated to disaster preparedness (for example, on personal hygiene or balanced nutrition). This attention-matched comparator controls for contact time, facilitator attention, and the novelty of receiving a video session, isolating the specific effect of the disaster content. After the four-week follow-up assessment, classes in this arm are offered the full audiovisual disaster-education intervention.
Interventions
A 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.
A 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.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Cluster (class) level:
- \- Intact class of grade X, XI, or XII within the participating school
- Individual (student) level:
- 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
You may not qualify if:
- Cluster (class) level:
- \- Class unavailable for the full schedule of sessions during the study window (for example, examination or fieldwork commitments)
- Individual (student) level:
- 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
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Central Study Contacts
I Made Moh. Yanuar Saifudin, S.Kep., Ns., M.Kep.
CONTACT
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Masking Details
- Participants and session facilitators cannot be masked because the intervention is overt. Outcome data are collected by self-administered questionnaire identical across arms; the data manager who enters and cleans the data and the statistician who performs the primary analysis are masked to allocation. Unmasking occurs only after the primary analysis is locked.
- Purpose
- PREVENTION
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Lecturer, Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
August 16, 2026
First Posted
August 24, 2026
Study Start (Estimated)
October 15, 2026
Primary Completion (Estimated)
December 20, 2026
Study Completion (Estimated)
January 20, 2027
Last Updated
August 24, 2026
Record last verified: 2026-08
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will share
- Shared Documents
- STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, CSR, ANALYTIC CODE
- Time Frame
- Beginning 6 months and ending 3 years after publication of the primary results.
- Access Criteria
- Requests should be directed to the principal investigator at imademohyanuar.s@ners.untan.ac.id. Requesters must provide a methodologically sound proposal and obtain approval from the Health Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Tanjungpura, before data are released.
De-identified individual participant data underlying the published results, together with the data dictionary, will be made available by the principal investigator on reasonable request from qualified researchers whose proposed use has been approved by an independent review committee, subject to institutional and ethics-committee approval and a signed data-access agreement.