Study Details
Jemmott, J. B., Jemmott, L. S., Fong, G. T., McCaffree, K. (1999). Reducing HIV risk-associated sexual behavior among African American adolescents: Testing the generality of intervention effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 161-187.
Be Proud! Be Responsible!
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
496
3
6
Study Findings
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.
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.