1. Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review
  2. Programs
  3. Sexual Health and Adolescent Risk Prevention (SHARP)

Sexual Health and Adolescent Risk Prevention (SHARP)

Developers
Angela D. Bryan, Ph.D.; Sarah J. Schmiege, Ph.D.; and Michelle R. Broaddus, Ph.D.
Program Summary
Sexual Health and Adolescent Risk Prevention (SHARP) is an interactive single-session STI/HIV prevention intervention. The program's overall goals are to deepen STI/HIV knowledge, improve correct condom use, reduce sexual risks and alcohol use, and set long-term goals to utilize knowledge and skills learned during the session. The session is about four hours long and organized by gender.
Intended Population
The program was designed and tested with youth ages 15 to 19 residing in temporary juvenile detention facilities.  Suggested target populations include high risk youth in clinical, in-patient, or community-based settings.
Program Setting

The program was designed for and evaluated in a juvenile detention facility.

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-sexual-health-and-adolescent-risk-prevention-sharp

Sample of Curriculum Available for Review Prior to Purchase
No
Languages Available
English
Monitoring and Evaluation Tools
Monitoring and evaluation tools available
Yes
Monitoring and evaluation tool usage required
No
Information about available monitoring and evaluation tools (if applicable)

Sociometrics offers the following: the evaluation instruments used in the original implementation of the program; the Prevention Minimum Evaluation Data Set, a generic questionnaire that can be adapted to suit most prevention programs; and the Local Evaluator Consultant Network Directory, to contact local evaluators for assistance with conducting studies. Sociometrics also offers a fidelity monitoring tool at https://www.socio.com/products/pasha-sexual-health-and-adolescent-risk-prevention-sharp.

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 dosage itself is described in the Notes when available.

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.

For more details about program components, refer to the FAQ page.

Category Component Core Component Component present Lesson number(s) / activities where present
Context Setting: Other
Context Other
Intended population characteristics Age or grade in school No
Intended population characteristics Sex No
Intended population characteristics Ethnicity No
Intended population characteristics Sex No
Intended population characteristics No
Intended population characteristics Race No
Intended population characteristics Urbanicity No Yes
Intended population characteristics Homeless or runaway youth No Yes (both versions)
Intended population characteristics Youth with developmental disabilities No
Intended population characteristics Sexually active youth No Yes (both versions)
Intended population characteristics Pregnant/expectant or parenting No
Intended population characteristics Child welfare No Yes (both versions)
Intended population characteristics Juvenile justice No Yes (both versions)
Intended population characteristics Population-specific needs/challenges
Intended population characteristics Population-specific strengths
Intended population characteristics Other
Program Objectives
The program goals of SHARP are to deepen STI/HIV knowledge, improve correct condom use, reduce sexual risks and alcohol use, and set long-term goals to utilize knowledge and skills learned during the session.
Program Content
SHARP is a single-session program. The intervention consists of the following core elements:
  • Increasing awareness and knowledge of the consequences of risky sexual and substance use practices.
  • Understanding how HIV and STIs are transmitted.
  • Identifying incorrect HIV heuristics.
  • Identifying behaviors that place people at risk for HIV/STIs.
  • Improving individual condom use self-efficacy.
  • Developing sexual risk reduction strategies.
  • Learning how to successfully negotiate condom use.
  • Developing long-term sexual risk and alcohol use reduction goals.
  • Understanding how decisions about engaging in risk behaviors today can affect life tomorrow and further down the road.
SHARP is grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Cognitive Theory, and Motivational Interviewing/Motivational Enhanced Therapy.
Program Methods
The program is delivered through Motivational Enhancement Therapy, goal setting exercises, videos, lecture, and group discussion.
Program Structure and Timeline

The program structure of SHARP includes the following:

  • SHARP is delivered in a 3.5 to 4 hour single session.
  • Groups must be separated by gender.
  • The ideal group size is 3 to 5 participants, and should not exceed 10 youth.
  • When discussing marijuana and other drugs, alcohol must also be discussed.
Staffing
It is recommended that staff are familiar with Motivational Interviewing techniques.
Staff Training
Training is strongly encouraged, but is not required. Training occurs over 1.5 to 2 days and content and cost varies by agency needs, location, etc. One of Dr. Bryan's original facilitators co-trains with a trainer from Sociometrics.
Program Materials and Resources
Sociometrics provides a SHARP PASHA Program Package that consists of:
  • A SHARP user's guide
  • Facilitator's manual
  • Student workbooks
  • Risky Behaviors computer game
  • Alcohol use questionnaire
  • Personal feedback report & scoring card
  • CD containing both the "Your Move" and "Under the Influence" Videos. 

These materials can be found at: http://www.socio.com/passt28.php

Additional Needs for Implementation

The implementation of SHARP requires the following materials that are not available from the developer:

  • Penis proxy
  • TV/DVD player for viewing the videos
  • A calculator
  • Computers, ideally one computer for each 1-2 participants for the video game.  If you do not have the necessary number of computers to accommodate this, the alternative would be to use one computer and project the video game onto the wall or a screen using a LCD projector.

If the program is being implemented in a detention or other residential facility, it is recommended that program implementers check with the facility administration on banned items (e.g. pens) or any safety measures implemented on-site.

Fidelity
Sociometrics provides original evaluation instruments, the Prevention Minimum Evaluation Data Set (PMEDS), and a local evaluator consultant network directory. A fidelity monitoring tool is available at: https://www.socio.com/products/pasha-sexual-health-and-adolescent-risk-prevention-sharp.
Technical Assistance and Ongoing Support
Telephone technical support on implementation and evaluation is available for one year.
Allowable Adaptations
Agencies are allowed to split the session up into two sessions, as long as there is no more than two days between sessions. Also, agencies can reshoot the videos using the same script to make it more contemporary or relevant to their population.
 

 

 
Adaptation Guidelines or Kit
No
Reviewed Studies
Citation High-Quality Randomized Trial Moderate-Quality Randomized Trial Moderate-Quality Quasi-Experiment Low Study Rating Did Not Meet Eligibility Criteria

Bryan et al. 2009

Schmiege et al. 2009
Study Characteristics
Citation Setting Majority Age Group Majority Racial/Ethnic Group Gender Sample Size

Bryan et al. 2009

Schmiege et al. 2009

 		Detention facility 14 to 17 White Male and female youth

484
Study Findings

Evidence by Outcome Domain and Study

Citation Sexual Activity Number of Sexual Partners Contraceptive Use STIs or HIV Pregnancy

Bryan et al. 2009

Schmiege et al. 2009

 		n.a. n.a. Potentially favorable evidence n.a. n.a.
KEY
Evidence Indication
Favorable findings
Two or more favorable impacts and no unfavorable impacts, regardless of null findings
Potentially favorable findings
At least one favorable impact and no unfavorable impacts, regardless of null findings
Indeterminate findings
Uniformly null findings
Conflicting findings
At least one favorable and at least one unfavorable impact, regardless of null findings
Potentially unfavorable findings
At least one unfavorable impact and no favorable impacts, regardless of null findings
Unfavorable findings
Two or more unfavorable impacts and no favorable impacts, regardless of null 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

Bryan et al. 2009

Schmiege et al. 2009

The program was evaluated in a cluster randomized controlled trial involving adolescents from three juvenile detention facilities in Denver, CO. Small groups of adolescents were recruited on a rolling basis over a 30-month period from January 2004 to July 2006. Each group was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) a treatment group that received the full intervention, (2) a treatment group that received only the first component of the intervention, the three-hour small-group session, or (3) a control group that received a one-hour small-group informational session on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Surveys were administered immediately before the intervention (baseline), immediately after the intervention, and at follow-ups conducted 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the program.

The study found that across the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up surveys, condom use declined among all three of the study's research groups, but the trend in the rate of decline was significantly reduced for adolescents who received the full intervention relative to those in the control group. The study also examined program impacts on measures of alcohol problems and sexual intercourse while drinking. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because they fell outside the scope of the review.

Notes

Some study entries may include more than one citation because each citation examines a different follow-up period from the same study sample, or because each citation examines a different set of outcome measures on the same study sample. A blank cell indicates the study did not examine any outcome measures within the particular outcome domain or the findings for the outcome measures within that domain did not meet the review evidence standards.

Information on evidence of effectiveness is available only for studies that received a high or moderate rating. Read the description of the review process for more information on how these programs are identified.

Language directly from the program model developer or authors.