Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

NCT number NCT04950686
Other study ID # CCHealthStudy-R01-20-007
Secondary ID R01HD099134
Status Completed
Phase N/A
First received
Last updated
Start date July 21, 2021
Est. completion date March 24, 2024

Study information

Verified date May 2024
Source Innovation Research & Training
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Community college students are an underserved and at-risk population in terms of their sexual and relationship health. This is a three-arm randomized control trial to evaluate the long-term efficacy of a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program among U.S. community college students (expected N = 2010) and explore the mechanisms underlying the program efficacy.


Description:

Community college students are an underserved and at-risk population in terms of their sexual and relationship health. One promising avenue for improving sexual decision making among this population is media literacy education (MLE). Though studies show MLE is an effective approach to sexual health promotion there is a need to better understand the mechanisms by which MLE programs impact health outcomes. The ultimate goals of this study are to 1) advance theoretical frameworks of media literacy to better understand the underlying mechanisms that lead to sexual health behavior change and 2) enhance the sexual and relationship health of community college students by identifying successful methods of health promotion and strategies to implement health programs at community colleges. This study is a three-arm randomized control trial (RCT) with 2010 community college students (ages 18-19) from 30 colleges across the U.S. All components of this study (i.e., interventions, surveys) are web-based. Participating students will be randomized to one of three conditions: 1) students who receive a sexual health program grounded in MLE (Media Aware); 2) students who receive a sexual health program with no MLE; and 3) a wait-list control group. Participants will complete pretest, posttest, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up surveys to examine changes across the three groups in our primary outcomes (e.g., risky sexual behavior) and secondary outcomes (e.g., sexual health knowledge, rape myth acceptance, perceived realism of media messages).


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Completed
Enrollment 2184
Est. completion date March 24, 2024
Est. primary completion date March 24, 2024
Accepts healthy volunteers Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Gender All
Age group 18 Years to 19 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - Students must be 18 or 19 years of age. - Students must attend one of the community colleges from which this study is recruiting participants. - Students must have an email address to receive study communication. - Students must have access to a computer, tablet, or phone device with internet access as the questionnaires and programs are web-based. - Students must be able to speak and read English because the study materials (e.g., questionnaires, programs) are in English. Exclusion Criteria: -

Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Behavioral:
Media Aware for Young Adults
Media Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program designed for young adults that uses a media literacy education (MLE) approach.
Health Aware for Young Adults
Media Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program designed for young adults.

Locations

Country Name City State
United States innovation Research and Training Durham North Carolina

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Innovation Research & Training Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary Relationship satisfaction 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?"; Hendrick, 1988); rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Relationship satisfaction 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?"; Hendrick, 1988); rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Relationship satisfaction 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?"; Hendrick, 1988); rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Relationship violence perpetration 10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Relationship violence perpetration 10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Relationship violence perpetration 10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Relationship violence victimization 10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Relationship violence victimization 10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Relationship violence victimization 10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Identity abuse 7-items (e.g., "My partner threatened to tell my employer, family, or others about my sexual orientation or gender identity"; Woulfe & Goodman, 2018); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times); higher scores indicate more frequent identity abuse; range = 0-7; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship AND they were not heterosexual responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Identity abuse 7-items (e.g., "My partner threatened to tell my employer, family, or others about my sexual orientation or gender identity"; Woulfe & Goodman, 2018); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times); higher scores indicate more frequent identity abuse; range = 0-7; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship AND they were not heterosexual responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Identity abuse 7-items (e.g., "My partner threatened to tell my employer, family, or others about my sexual orientation or gender identity"; Woulfe & Goodman, 2018); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times); higher scores indicate more frequent identity abuse; range = 0-7; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship AND they were not heterosexual responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Risky sexual behaviors 4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?; Turchik, 2007); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month); higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Risky sexual behaviors 4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?; Turchik, 2007); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month); higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Risky sexual behaviors 4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?; Turchik, 2007); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month); higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Use of protection at last oral sex 1-item ("Did you use a condom and/or dental dam the last time you had oral sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Use of protection at last oral sex 1-item ("Did you use a condom and/or dental dam the last time you had oral sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item 6-month follow-up
Primary Use of protection at last oral sex 1-item ("Did you use a condom and/or dental dam the last time you had oral sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item 12-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of use of protection during oral sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of use of protection during oral sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom or dental dam when having oral sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Frequency of use of protection during oral sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of use of protection during oral sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom or dental dam when having oral sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of use of protection during oral sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of use of protection during oral sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom or dental dam when having oral sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of condom use during vaginal sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having vaginal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Frequency of condom use during vaginal sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having vaginal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of condom use during vaginal sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having vaginal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of birth control use 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of birth control use [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use one of the following forms of birth control? Birth control pills, The Shot (DepoProvera), The Patch, The Ring (Nuvaring), IUD (Mirena, Paraguard, Skyla), The Implant (Implanon, Nexplanon), or other FDA approved methods."]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Frequency of birth control use 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of birth control use [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use one of the following forms of birth control? Birth control pills, The Shot (DepoProvera), The Patch, The Ring (Nuvaring), IUD (Mirena, Paraguard, Skyla), The Implant (Implanon, Nexplanon), or other FDA approved methods."]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of birth control use 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of birth control use [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use one of the following forms of birth control? Birth control pills, The Shot (DepoProvera), The Patch, The Ring (Nuvaring), IUD (Mirena, Paraguard, Skyla), The Implant (Implanon, Nexplanon), or other FDA approved methods."]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Contraceptive use at last vaginal sex 1-item ("Did you use any contraceptive method the last time you had vaginal sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Contraceptive use at last vaginal sex 1-item ("Did you use any contraceptive method the last time you had vaginal sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item 6-month follow-up
Primary Contraceptive use at last vaginal sex 1-item ("Did you use any contraceptive method the last time you had vaginal sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item 12-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of condom use during anal sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during anal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having anal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Frequency of condom use during anal sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during anal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having anal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Primary Frequency of condom use during anal sex 3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during anal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having anal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Primary Condom use at last anal sex 1-item ("Did you use a condom during your last anal intercourse?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Primary Condom use at last anal sex 1-item ("Did you use a condom during your last anal intercourse?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item 6-month follow-up
Primary Condom use at last anal sex 1-item ("Did you use a condom during your last anal intercourse?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item 12-month follow-up
Secondary Perceived media message completeness 1-item ("How complete is the information in this advertisement?"; Scull et al., 2019); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (incomplete) to 4 (complete); higher scores indicate less critical media analysis; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Perceived media message completeness 1-item ("How complete is the information in this advertisement?"; Scull et al., 2019); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (incomplete) to 4 (complete); higher scores indicate less critical media analysis; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Perceived media message completeness 1-item ("How complete is the information in this advertisement?"; Scull et al., 2019); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (incomplete) to 4 (complete); higher scores indicate less critical media analysis; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Cognitive elaboration of advertisement 3-items (e.g., "How much time did you spend thinking about this advertisement?"; adapted from Shiv, Edell Britton, & Payne, 2004); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not much at all) to 4 (a lot); higher scores indicate more cognitive elaboration; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Cognitive elaboration of advertisement 3-items (e.g., "How much time did you spend thinking about this advertisement?"; adapted from Shiv, Edell Britton, & Payne, 2004); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not much at all) to 4 (a lot); higher scores indicate more cognitive elaboration; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Cognitive elaboration of advertisement 3-items (e.g., "How much time did you spend thinking about this advertisement?"; adapted from Shiv, Edell Britton, & Payne, 2004); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not much at all) to 4 (a lot); higher scores indicate more cognitive elaboration; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Perceived realism of media messages 6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants think media is more realistic; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Perceived realism of media messages 6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants think media is more realistic; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Perceived realism of media messages 6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants think media is more realistic; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Perceived similarity to media messages 7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Perceived similarity to media messages 7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Perceived similarity to media messages 7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Identification with media 3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Identification with media 3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Identification with media 3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Media skepticism 6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"; Scull et al., 2014, 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Media skepticism 6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"; Scull et al., 2014, 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Media skepticism 6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"; Scull et al., 2014, 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Dating violence norms 4-items (e.g., "It is OK for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends/partners if they did something to make them mad"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate worse dating violence norms; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Dating violence norms 4-items (e.g., "It is OK for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends/partners if they did something to make them mad"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate worse dating violence norms; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Dating violence norms 4-items (e.g., "It is OK for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends/partners if they did something to make them mad"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate worse dating violence norms; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Gender role norms 6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Gender role norms 6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Gender role norms 6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Rape myth acceptance 13-items (e.g., "If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand"; McMahon & Farmer, 2011); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Rape myth acceptance 13-items (e.g., "If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand"; McMahon & Farmer, 2011); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Rape myth acceptance 13-items (e.g., "If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand"; McMahon & Farmer, 2011); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Efficacy to intervene as bystander 5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"; Banyard et al., 2005); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy; range = 0-100 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Efficacy to intervene as bystander 5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"; Banyard et al., 2005); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy; range = 0-100 6-month follow-up
Secondary Efficacy to intervene as bystander 5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"; Banyard et al., 2005); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy; range = 0-100 12-month follow-up
Secondary Intent to intervene as bystander 4-items (e.g., "Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help"; Banyard, 2008); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to intervene as a bystander; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Intent to intervene as bystander 4-items (e.g., "Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help"; Banyard, 2008); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to intervene as a bystander; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Intent to intervene as bystander 4-items (e.g., "Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help"; Banyard, 2008); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to intervene as a bystander; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Sexual health knowledge 23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"; Scull et al., 2018); For each item, participants who answer correctly will receive a "1" and participants who answer incorrectly will receive a "0"; items will be summed; higher scores indicate greater sexual health knowledge; range = 0-23 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Sexual health knowledge 23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"; Scull et al., 2018); For each item, participants who answer correctly will receive a "1" and participants who answer incorrectly will receive a "0"; items will be summed; higher scores indicate greater sexual health knowledge; range = 0-23 6-month follow-up
Secondary Sexual health knowledge 23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"; Scull et al., 2018); For each item, participants who answer correctly will receive a "1" and participants who answer incorrectly will receive a "0"; items will be summed; higher scores indicate greater sexual health knowledge; range = 0-23 12-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward risky sexual behaviors 5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Attitudes toward risky sexual behaviors 5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward risky sexual behaviors 5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward unprotected sex 1-item ["It is okay to…have unprotected sex (not including when people are trying to get pregnant)"]; rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards unprotected sex; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Attitudes toward unprotected sex 1-item ["It is okay to…have unprotected sex (not including when people are trying to get pregnant)"]; rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards unprotected sex; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward unprotected sex 1-item ["It is okay to…have unprotected sex (not including when people are trying to get pregnant)"]; rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards unprotected sex; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward contraception/protection 9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes towards contraception; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Attitudes toward contraception/protection 9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes towards contraception; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward contraception/protection 9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes towards contraception; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward communication with partners and medical professionals 4-items (e.g., "Before deciding to have sex, people should…talk with their partner about HIV/AIDS and other STIs"; Scull et al., 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Attitudes toward communication with partners and medical professionals 4-items (e.g., "Before deciding to have sex, people should…talk with their partner about HIV/AIDS and other STIs"; Scull et al., 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Attitudes toward communication with partners and medical professionals 4-items (e.g., "Before deciding to have sex, people should…talk with their partner about HIV/AIDS and other STIs"; Scull et al., 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Descriptive norms of unprotected sex 1-item (e.g., "What percentage of people your age have had unprotected sex?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in the behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in unprotected sex; range = 0-100 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Descriptive norms of unprotected sex 1-item (e.g., "What percentage of people your age have had unprotected sex?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in the behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in unprotected sex; range = 0-100 6-month follow-up
Secondary Descriptive norms of unprotected sex 1-item (e.g., "What percentage of people your age have had unprotected sex?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in the behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in unprotected sex; range = 0-100 12-month follow-up
Secondary Descriptive norms of risky sexual activity 5-items (e.g., "What percentage of people your age…have had oral, anal, or vaginal sex with someone who has not been tested for STIs or whose STI status is unknown?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in each behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in risky contraception use/protection practices; range = 0-100 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Descriptive norms of risky sexual activity 5-items (e.g., "What percentage of people your age…have had oral, anal, or vaginal sex with someone who has not been tested for STIs or whose STI status is unknown?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in each behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in risky contraception use/protection practices; range = 0-100 6-month follow-up
Secondary Descriptive norms of risky sexual activity 5-items (e.g., "What percentage of people your age…have had oral, anal, or vaginal sex with someone who has not been tested for STIs or whose STI status is unknown?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in each behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in risky contraception use/protection practices; range = 0-100 12-month follow-up
Secondary Sex refusal self-efficacy 5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Sex refusal self-efficacy 5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Sex refusal self-efficacy 5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex 1-item ("I can easily say 'no' to sex if we do not have protection even if I really want to have sex with that person"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex 1-item ("I can easily say 'no' to sex if we do not have protection even if I really want to have sex with that person"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex 1-item ("I can easily say 'no' to sex if we do not have protection even if I really want to have sex with that person"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Self-efficacy to use protection 2-items (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use protection; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Self-efficacy to use protection 2-items (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use protection; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Self-efficacy to use protection 2-items (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use protection; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Self-efficacy to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex 4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Self-efficacy to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex 4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Self-efficacy to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex 4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Risky sexual behavior intentions 5-items (e.g., "In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with a casual partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Risky sexual behavior intentions 5-items (e.g., "In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with a casual partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Risky sexual behavior intentions 5-items (e.g., "In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with a casual partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Intentions to have unprotected sex 1-item ("In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will…have unprotected sex?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Intentions to have unprotected sex 1-item ("In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will…have unprotected sex?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Intentions to have unprotected sex 1-item ("In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will…have unprotected sex?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Intentions to use protection/contraception 3-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to have sexual intercourse in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…use a condom?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to use protection/contraception; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Intentions to use protection/contraception 3-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to have sexual intercourse in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…use a condom?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to use protection/contraception; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Intentions to use protection/contraception 3-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to have sexual intercourse in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…use a condom?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to use protection/contraception; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Intentions to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex 6-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to engage in sexual activity with a new partner in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…talk with a partner about HIV/AIDS or other STIs?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to communicate; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Intentions to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex 6-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to engage in sexual activity with a new partner in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…talk with a partner about HIV/AIDS or other STIs?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to communicate; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Intentions to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex 6-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to engage in sexual activity with a new partner in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…talk with a partner about HIV/AIDS or other STIs?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to communicate; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Willingness to have unprotected sex 1-item (e.g., "Suppose you were with your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. He/she wants to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Willingness to have unprotected sex 1-item (e.g., "Suppose you were with your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. He/she wants to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Willingness to have unprotected sex 1-item (e.g., "Suppose you were with your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. He/she wants to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors 5-items (e.g., "Suppose you wanted to have sex with someone but you did not know their STI status. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors 5-items (e.g., "Suppose you wanted to have sex with someone but you did not know their STI status. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors 5-items (e.g., "Suppose you wanted to have sex with someone but you did not know their STI status. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Advertisement deconstruction skills Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012) posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Advertisement deconstruction skills Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012) 6-month follow-up
Secondary Advertisement deconstruction skills Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012) 12-month follow-up
Secondary Injunctive norms - most people 3-items (e.g., "Most people believe that it is okay for people my age to have unprotected sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate riskier injunctive norms; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Injunctive norms - most people 3-items (e.g., "Most people believe that it is okay for people my age to have unprotected sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate riskier injunctive norms; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Injunctive norms - most people 3-items (e.g., "Most people believe that it is okay for people my age to have unprotected sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate riskier injunctive norms; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Injunctive norms - friends 2-items (e.g., "My friends think I should use protection when I have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky injunctive norms; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Injunctive norms - friends 2-items (e.g., "My friends think I should use protection when I have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky injunctive norms; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Injunctive norms - friends 2-items (e.g., "My friends think I should use protection when I have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky injunctive norms; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Descriptive norms - people like me 1-item ("Most people like me use protection when they have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky descriptive norms; range = 1-4 posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Descriptive norms - people like me 1-item ("Most people like me use protection when they have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky descriptive norms; range = 1-4 6-month follow-up
Secondary Descriptive norms - people like me 1-item ("Most people like me use protection when they have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky descriptive norms; range = 1-4 12-month follow-up
Secondary Frequency of communication with sexual partner 6-items used to calculate change in frequency of sexual communication with a partner(s) [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you talk to your partner(s) about…sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Frequency of communication with sexual partner 6-items used to calculate change in frequency of sexual communication with a partner(s) [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you talk to your partner(s) about…sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 6-month follow-up
Secondary Frequency of communication with sexual partner 6-items used to calculate change in frequency of sexual communication with a partner(s) [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you talk to your partner(s) about…sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items. 12-month follow-up
Secondary Frequency of communication with doctor 3-items used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex [e.g., "In the past month, had you talked to a doctor or other medical professional about sex, contraception, and/or relationships?"]; participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0) posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Secondary Frequency of communication with doctor 3-items used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex [e.g., "In the past month, had you talked to a doctor or other medical professional about sex, contraception, and/or relationships?"]; participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0) 6-month follow-up
Secondary Frequency of communication with doctor 3-items used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex [e.g., "In the past month, had you talked to a doctor or other medical professional about sex, contraception, and/or relationships?"]; participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0) 12-month follow-up
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT02493647 - Love, Sex & Choices: A Web Series on Mobile Devices to Reduce Black Women's HIV Risk N/A
Completed NCT03533192 - Replication of Evidence-based Programs N/A
Completed NCT02548871 - Evaluation of the Teen Outreach Program in Chicago Public Schools N/A
Completed NCT00220597 - Group Therapies for Reducing HIV-risk Behavior in Women Who Have Survived Childhood Sexual Abuse N/A
Recruiting NCT05620849 - Young Adult Education on Alcohol & Health N/A
Completed NCT04035694 - Evaluation Study of the Online High School Media Aware Program N/A
Completed NCT04070950 - Sexuality of Women With Pelvic Cancer
Completed NCT04079608 - Rigorous Evaluation of High School FLASH N/A
Completed NCT03366636 - Project Legacy Impact Evaluation Study N/A
Completed NCT02613039 - Oral Contraceptive Therapy and Sexuality Phase 4
Completed NCT02736214 - Reproductive Life Plan-based Counseling With Men N/A
Withdrawn NCT01169922 - HIV Prevention With Adolescents: Neurocognitive Deficits and Treatment Response N/A
Completed NCT00249496 - Employment-based Reinforcement to Motivate Drug Abstinence in the Treatment of Drug Addiction. - 1 N/A
Completed NCT02993185 - Making Healthy Decisions: A Trial Evaluating the "Your Move" Teen Pregnancy-prevention Intervention N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT01088542 - The Community Youth Development Study: A Test of Communities That Care N/A
Completed NCT03330522 - Reducing HIV Risk in Urban Women: Soap Opera Videos on Video-Capable Cell Phones N/A
Completed NCT02530645 - Development and Testing of a Smartphone Application to Reduce Substance Use and Sexual Risk Among Homeless Young Adults N/A
Completed NCT02866292 - The Pelvic Floor Muscles Strength and Sexual Function in Primigravid and Non-pregnant Nulliparous N/A
Completed NCT00109421 - Friendship Based HIV/STI (Sexually Transmitted Infections) Intervention for African American Females N/A
Recruiting NCT05140980 - Sexuality Education: Knowledge of Women Aged 18 to 25