Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityLongitudinal Research on Delinquency and Crime (Funding Opportunity)

FOCUS - INACTIVE

Inactive Reason

This program is inactive because it has evidence of favorable impacts that is more than 20 years old. It no longer meets the inclusion criteria for the TPPER.

Developers

Cherrie Boyer, Ph.D., Mary-Ann Shafer, M.D., and Richard Shaffer, Ph.D.

Program Summary

FOCUS is an eight-hour cognitive-behavioral group intervention that promotes healthy behavior and responsible decision-making among young women. The program covers topics such as responsible behavior, relationships, pregnancy prevention, and STI prevention.

Intended Population

The suggested target population is youth who are at least 17 years old. It was evaluated with female United States Marine Corps recruits, ages 17 and older.

Program Setting

FOCUS was designed to be delivered in diverse program settings. It was evaluated in a classroom-based setting during the first 13-week period of Marine recruit training.

Contact and Availability Information

Sociometrics Corporation
1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 8
Mountain View, CA 94040
Ph: 650-949-3282
Email: socio@socio.com
Website: https://www.socio.com/products/pasha-focus-preventing-sexually-transmitted-infections-and-unwanted-pregnancies-among-young-women

Sample of Curriculum Available for Review Prior to Purchase

Languages Available

English

Monitoring and Evaluation Tools

Monitoring and evaluation tools available

Yes

Monitoring and evaluation tool usage required

Information about available monitoring and evaluation tools (if applicable)

FOCUS has a fidelity toolkit and checklist, tools for monitoring program implementation, and evaluation instruments. Telephone technical support on implementation and evaluation is also provided by Sociometrics for one year with purchase of the program materials.

Program Components and Core Components

Last updated in 2024

The data presented on this page reflect responses from the program’s developer or distributor to a program component checklist that asked them to report on the individual components within their TPP program. The same program component checklist was sent to the developer or distributor of every active TPP program with evidence of effectiveness. The program component table provides information on seven types of program components including content, delivery mechanism, dosage, staffing, format, context, and intended population characteristics; whether the component was present or optional in the program; whether the component is considered to be core to the program; and the lesson number or activity where the component can be found in the program. In the drop-down menu below, under “Has component,” there are four options that indicate a component as present in the program: (1) “Yes” indicates that the component is present in at least one version of the program (whether that be the program version that was evaluated, the current version, or both versions); (2) “Yes (both versions)” indicates that the component is present in both the evaluated version of the program and the current version of the program; (3) “Yes (current version)” indicates that the component is present in the current, but not the evaluated, version of the program; and (4) “Yes (evaluated version)” indicates that the component is present in the evaluated version of the program, only. Note that for dosage components, the only possible response option was “Yes”, and the dosage is described in the Notes when available. For more details, refer to the FAQ. Some of the components identified are noted as core components of the evidence-based program, but this does not necessarily mean that these components have been rigorously tested and show evidence of effectiveness. Most often developers denoted components as core based on theory or experience in the field. Click here for the list of evidence-based components.

Category	Component	Core Component	Component present
Content	Substance use cessation		No
Content	Boundary setting/refusal skills	No	Yes (evaluated version)
Content	Child development		No
Content	Communication skills	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Content	Conflict resolution/social problem solving		No
Content	Cultural values	No	Yes (evaluated version)
Content	Gender identity		No
Content	Gender roles	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Content	Leadership		No
Content	Normative beliefs	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Content	Parenting skills		No
Content	Social competence
Content	Social influence/actual vs. perceived social norms	No	Yes (evaluated version)
Content	Social support/capital		No
Content	Identity development		No
Content	Morals/values	No	Yes (evaluated version)
Content	Spirituality		No
Content	Volunteering/civic engagement		No
Content	Other
Delivery mechanism	Method: Anonymous question box		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Artistic expression		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Assessment/survey	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Booster session		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Case management		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Demonstration	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Discussion/debrief		Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Family session		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Game		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Home visiting		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Homework assignment		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: In-session assignment	No	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Introduction	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Lecture	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Motivational interviewing		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Music		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Parent-focused activity		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Peer-to-peer	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Public service announcement	No	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Reading	No	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Role play/Practice	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Self-guided activity		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Service learning		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Slide show	Yes	Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Social media		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Spiral learning		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Storytelling		Yes (evaluated version)
Delivery mechanism	Method: Text message		No
Delivery mechanism	Method: Video
Delivery mechanism	Method: Other

Program Objectives

FOCUS seeks to prevent unintended pregnancy and STIs among young women, ages 17 and older. It is designed to change attitudes about sexual behavior, improve knowledge about pregnancy and STIs, and build communications skills including contraceptive use and refusal skills.

Program Content

The core content includes four 2-hour sessions. The sessions are broken into modules, which can be delivered separately.

Session 1: Increase knowledge about unintended pregnancies and STDs including HIV/AIDS. Goal: Modify values, beliefs, and attitudes that impact sexual behavior.
Session 2: Increase knowledge about hormonal and barrier contraceptives. Goal: Build communication skills to prevent risky sexual behaviors and increase condom use.
Session 3: Increase knowledge about the signs, symptoms, and consequences of STDs/HIV/AIDS. Goals: Increase knowledge about the transmission and prevention of STDs/HIV; Build communication skills to prevent STDs/HIV.
Session 4: Modify attitudes about the effects of alcohol and its relationship to sexual risk behaviors. Goals: Build refusal communication skills; Build condom use skills; Increase awareness about how life choices can impact decision-making and health.

Program Methods

The program is primarily delivered through lectures using PowerPoint slide presentations. Presentations are augmented by group discussions, interactive activities including a condom demonstration, role play, and videos.

Program Structure and Timeline

The eight-hour curriculum is designed to be delivered in four 2-hour sessions. Groups should be 20 to 25 participants.

Staffing

FOCUS facilitators are preferably female health educators or facilitators comfortable with sexual health subject matter.

Staff Training

There is no required training for this program. Providers interested in training should contact Sociometrics.

Program Materials and Resources

The following program materials are available through the distributor:

User's Guide
Program Manual
1 Flash Drive Containing 11 Power Point Slide Sets
1 copy of each of these 4 DVDs: (1) Birth Control: Understanding the Options, (2) My First Pelvic Exam, (3) In Our Own Words: Teens and AIDS, (4) Good to Go.
Video list
50 copies of two brochures (STD Facts and Birth Control Facts)
Photocopy masters of all handouts
Fidelity toolkit
Original Evaluation Instruments booklet
Prevention Minimum Evaluation Data Set (PMEDS)
Local Evaluator Consultant Network Directory

While a free sample curriculum is not available, providers may purchase an automatic digital download of the user’s guide to review program components, core competencies for facilitators, and scientific evidence of effectiveness. If providers decide to purchase the program, the price of the download is deducted.

Additional Needs for Implementation

The program requires the use of a television and DVD player, a computer with PowerPoint capabilities, and a screen for showing PowerPoint presentations. Other materials needed for implementation include condoms, a penis proxy, and hard candies.

Fidelity

FOCUS has a fidelity toolkit/checklist and tools for monitoring program implementation. It may be accessed on the Sociometrics website: https://www.socio.com/products/pasha-focus-preventing-sexually-transmitted-infections-and-unwanted-pregnancies-among-young-women

Technical Assistance and Ongoing Support

Sociometrics provides telephone technical support on implementation and evaluation for one year with purchase of the program materials.

Allowable Adaptations

There are three allowable adaptations, however, all adaptations must be approved by the developer and Sociometrics. Potential adaptations include:

The program can be implemented in different settings, such as clinics, community-based organizations, or schools/colleges.
The program can be adapted for use with non-military women. This program cannot be adapted for men.
It may be possible to deliver the sessions in longer or shorter segments.

Adaptation Guidelines or Kit

Reviewed Studies

Citation	High-Quality Randomized Trial	Did Not Meet Eligibility Criteria
Flinders n.d.		✓
Boyer et al. 2005	✓
Flinders 2013a		✓
Flinders 2013b		✓
Flinders 2013c		✓
Flinders 2013d		✓
Flinders et al. 2014		✓
Bernstein and Flinders 2017		✓
Flinders 2017		✓
Flinders and Zehler 2022		✓

Study Characteristics

Citation	Setting	Majority Age Group	Majority Racial/Ethnic Group	Gender	Sample Size
Flinders n.d.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Boyer et al. 2005	Specialized setting	18 or 19	White	Young women	2157
Flinders 2013a	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2013b	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2013c	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2013d	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders et al. 2014	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Bernstein and Flinders 2017	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2017	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders and Zehler 2022	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.

Study Findings

Evidence by Outcome Domain and Study

Citation	Sexual Activity	Number of Sexual Partners	Contraceptive Use	STIs or HIV	Pregnancy
Flinders n.d.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Boyer et al. 2005	n.a.			n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2013a	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2013b	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2013c	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2013d	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders et al. 2014	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Bernstein and Flinders 2017	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders 2017	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Flinders and Zehler 2022	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.

KEY

Evidence Indication

Favorable findings

Potentially favorable findings

Indeterminate findings

Conflicting findings

Potentially unfavorable findings

Unfavorable findings

Note: n.a. indicates the study did not examine any outcome measures within that particular outcome domain, or the study examined outcome measures within that domain but the findings did not meet the review evidence standards.

Detailed Findings

Citation	Details
Flinders n.d.	This study did not meet the review's eligibility criteria
Boyer et al. 2005	The program was evaluated in a cluster randomized controlled trial involving female Marine recruits who participated in the study during their first 13-week training period. Study participants were randomly assigned by platoon to either a treatment group that received the FOCUS intervention or a control group that received a health-promotion intervention on diet, physical activity, and cancer prevention. Surveys were administered immediately before the program (baseline) and at approximately one and eleven months after the program ended. Biological screening was conducted for pregnancy, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomonas. The study found that 11 months after the program ended, participants in the intervention who were sexually inexperienced at baseline were significantly less likely to report having had multiple sexual partners since graduating from Marine recruit training. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on the number of sexual partners for participants who were sexually experienced at baseline, or on consistency of condom use for any group of study participants. The study also examined program impacts on measures of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for this review because they did not meet the review evidence standards. Specifically, findings were reported only for certain subgroups of study participants, depending on where they were deployed after completing Marine recruit training. Those findings may be biased if deployment decisions were nonrandom.
Flinders 2013a	This study did not meet the review's eligibility criteria
Flinders 2013b	This study did not meet the review's screening criteria
Flinders 2013c	This study did not meet the review's eligibility criteria
Flinders 2013d	This study did not meet the review's screening criteria
Flinders et al. 2014	This study did not meet the review's screening criteria
Bernstein and Flinders 2017	This study did not meet the review's screening criteria
Flinders 2017	This study did not meet the review's eligibility criteria
Flinders and Zehler 2022	This study did not meet the review's screening criteria

Breadcrumb

FOCUS - INACTIVE

Lists*