Study Details
Downs, J. S., Murray, P. J., Bruine de Bruin, W., Penrose, J., Palmgren, C., Fischhoff, B. (2004). Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females' STD risk: A randomized controlled trial. Social Science Medicine, 59(8), 1561-1572.
Seventeen Days (formerly What Could You Do?)
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
300
2
6
Study Findings
The program was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial conducted in four clinic-based healthcare sites in Pittsburgh, PA. Adolescents participating in the study were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a treatment group that watched the intervention video, (2) a control group that received the same information from the video but as a book, and (3) a control group that received commercially-available brochures on STD risk. Study data were collected with surveys administered immediately before the intervention and at follow-ups conducted 3 and 6 months after the intervention ended. Biological testing for chlamydia was conducted at the 6-month follow-up.
Three months after the program ended, participants who watched the intervention video were more likely to report having been abstinent in the past three months. In addition, six months after the program ended, participants who watched the intervention video were less likely to report having been diagnosed with an STD. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on rates of abstinence in the past three months, self-reported condom use in the past three months, or the biological tests for chlamydia at the 6-month follow-up.
The study also examined program impacts on measures of STD knowledge and self-reported condom failures. Findings for those outcomes were not considered for the review because they 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.