Study Details


Borawski, E. A., Trapl, E. S., Adams-Tufts, K., Hayman, L. L., Goodwin, M. A., Lovegreen, L. D. (2009). Taking be proud! be responsible! to the suburbs: A replication study. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(1), 12-22.

Borawski, E. A., Tufts, K. A., Trapl, E. S., Hayman, L. L., Yoder, L. D., Lovegreen, L. D. (2015). Effectiveness of health education teachers and school nurses teaching sexually transmitted infections/human immunodeficiency virus prevention knowledge and skills in high school. The Journal of School Health, 85(3), 189-196. doi:10.1111/josh.12234 [doi]

Program Name

Be Proud! Be Responsible!

Show Evidence of Effectiveness
Study Rating and Explanation

Random assignment study that met all criteria for a high rating; findings show no positive, statistically significant impact on a relevant behavioral outcome measure for either the full sample or key subgroup

Program Information

Program Type
Sexual health education
Program Length
Fewer than 10 sessions

Evaluation Setting

Evaluation Setting
In school: High school

Study Sample

Average Age Group
14 to 17
Majority Racial/Ethnic Group
Youth of any gender

Research Design

Assignment Method
Cluster randomized controlled trial
Sample Size


Number of Follow-Ups


Length of Last Follow-Up


Year of Last Data Collection

Study Findings

Result Sexual Activity
Indeterminate evidence
Reviewed Studies
High-Quality Randomized Trial
Protocol Version
Version 1.0
Effect Sizes
{"0": {"ProgramName":"Be Proud! Be Responsible!","StudyID":"PPRER000011","ManuscriptID":"PPRER000011","sid":"21","Rating":"High","OutcomeName":"Ever had intercourse","OutcomeDomain":"Sexual Activity","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Subgroup--other","FUTimingMonths":"4","FUReference":"End of intervention","MeanTreat":"0.11","MeanComp":"0.09","TpperES":"0.176","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"},"1": {"ProgramName":"Be Proud! Be Responsible!","StudyID":"PPRER000011","ManuscriptID":"PPRER000011","sid":"21","Rating":"High","OutcomeName":"Ever had intercourse","OutcomeDomain":"Sexual Activity","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Subgroup--other","FUTimingMonths":"12","FUReference":"End of intervention","MeanTreat":"0.21","MeanComp":"0.19","TpperES":"0.075","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"}}

NA = Not available. This means the authors did not report the information in the manuscripts associated with the studies we reviewed.

a This information was not available whenever authors did not report information for the treatment and comparison groups separately on outcome means, standard deviations, and/or sample sizes.

b Authors reported that the program effect (impact) estimate is statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test.

c For some outcomes, having less of that outcome is favorable. In those cases, an effect with a negative sign is favorable to the treatment group (that is, the treatment group had a more favorable outcome than the comparison group, on average).

d An effect shows credibly estimated, statistically significant evidence whenever it has a p-value of less than 0.05 based on a two-tailed test, includes the appropriate adjustment for clustering (if applicable), and it is not based on an endogenous subgroup.


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.