Study Details
Philliber, S., Kaye, J. W., Herrling, S., West, E. (2002). Preventing pregnancy and improving health care access among teenagers: An evaluation of the Children's Aid Society-Carrera program. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(5), 244-251.
Children's Aid Society (CAS)-Carrera Program
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
484
3
0
Study Findings
The program's evidence of effectiveness was first established in a randomized controlled trial involving adolescents recruited from six New York City agencies serving disadvantaged, inner-city populations. Within each agency, study participants were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the intervention or a control that received each agency's regular youth programming, which included recreational activities, homework help, and arts and crafts. Surveys were administered immediately before the program (baseline) and then annually for three years.
The study found that three years after the study started, female adolescents participating in the program were significantly less likely to report having been pregnant or being currently sexually active. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on having caused a pregnancy or on being sexually active for male participants.
The study also examined program impacts on a measure of dual contraceptive use (condom and a hormonal contraceptive method) at last intercourse. Findings for this outcome were not considered for the review because they did not meet the review evidence standards. Specifically, findings were reported only for subgroups of youth defined by sexual activity at follow up. Additionally, the study examined program impacts on health care outcomes such as receipt of medical checkups, vaccinations, and dental care. Findings for these 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.