Be Proud! Be Responsible! - INACTIVE

The program's evidence of effectiveness was first established in a randomized controlled trial involving African American male adolescents recruited from school- and community-based locations in Philadelphia, PA. Study participants were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the program during a single 5-hour session delivered on a Saturday morning, or to a control group that received a career opportunities development program during the same 5-hour session. Surveys were administered immediately before the program session (baseline), immediately after the session ended, and three months after the session.

The study found that three months after the program session, adolescents in the treatment group reported having significantly fewer female sexual partners (difference in means = -0.93, confidence interval = -1.53 to -0.33), fewer days of vaginal intercourse (difference in means = -3.32, confidence interval = -5.78 to -0.89), and fewer days of vaginal intercourse without a condom (difference in means = -1.73, confidence interval = -2.86 to -0.60). In addition, adolescents in the treatment group were significantly less likely to report having had heterosexual anal sex in the last three months (difference in means = -0.19, confidence interval = -0.32 to -0.06). The study found no statistically significant program impacts on reports of ever having had sex, the number of female anal sex partners, or the frequency of heterosexual anal sex in the last three months.

The study also examined program impacts on measures of attitudes, intentions, and knowledge regarding sexual risk behaviors. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because the outcomes fell outside the scope of the review.

A subsequent study by the same group of researchers evaluated the program among a younger, co-ed sample of adolescents. The study used a randomized controlled trial involving African American seventh and eighth grade students in Trenton, NJ. Study participants were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the program during a single 5-hour session delivered on a Saturday, or to a control group that received a general health promotion program during the same session. Surveys were administered immediately before the 5-hour session (baseline), immediately after the session ended, and three and six months after the session.

The study successfully replicated one of the favorable impacts from the original study of the program by Jemmott (1992). Specifically, for the 6-month follow-up survey, the study found that adolescents in the treatment group were less likely than those in the control group to report having had heterosexual anal sex in the last three months. For the 6-month follow-up survey, the study also reported statistically significant program impacts on measures of the frequency of anal intercourse and number of anal sex partners, and on the frequency unprotected sex.

The study also examined program impacts on measures of attitudes toward condoms, self-efficacy, and condom-use intentions. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because the outcomes fell outside the scope of the review.

A separate study by the original group of researchers evaluated the program when implemented outside of school on a broad scale by local community-based organizations. The study used a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 86 community-based organizations in New Jersey and Philadelphia, PA. The study randomly assigned half the organizations to a treatment group that implemented the program and half to a control group that implemented a general health promotion curriculum. Surveys were administered immediately before the program started (baseline); immediately after the program ended, and three, six, and twelve months after the program ended.

The study findings failed to replicate the favorable impact on frequency of sexual intercourse found in the original study of the program by Jemmott (1992). However, the study also examined program impacts on four outcomes not measured in prior studies of the program: (1) consistency of condom use in the prior 90 days, (2) proportion of condom-protected sexual intercourse acts in the prior 90 days, (3) frequency of condom use in the prior 90 days, and (4) use of condoms at last intercourse. When averaging data across the three follow-up surveys, the study found statistically significant program impacts for the first three of these outcomes.

A more recent study by a separate group of researchers evaluated the program when implemented in suburban high schools during the regular school day. The study used a cluster randomized controlled trial involving ninth and tenth grade students from a Midwestern metropolitan area. Participating schools were randomly assigned in matched pairs to either a treatment group that implemented the program or to a control group that implemented a general health promotion curriculum. Surveys were administered before the program (baseline), immediately after the program, and again four and 12 months after the program ended.

The study found no statistically significant program impact on sexual initiation rates for the subgroup of students who were sexually inexperienced at baseline. The study also examined program impacts on the frequency of intercourse and four measures of unprotected intercourse. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because they did not meet the review evidence standards. Specifically, the outcomes were measured for subgroups of youth defined by sexual activity at follow up.

The study also examined program impacts on measures of condom and STDs knowledge, self-efficacy, condom use and abstinence beliefs, sexual activity and condom use perceived peer beliefs, and intentions to have sex and to use a condom. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because the outcomes fell outside the scope of the review.