PPRER001363

Citation

Lesser, J., Koniak-Griffin, D., Huang, R., Takayanagi, S., Cumberland, W. G. (2009). Parental protectiveness and unprotected sexual activity among Latino adolesent mothers and fathers. AIDS Education Prevention, 21, 88-102.

Koniak-Griffin, D., Lesser, J., Takayanagi, S., Cumberland, W. G. (2011). Couple-focused human immunodeficiency virus prevention for young Latino parents: Randomized clinical trial of efficacy and sustainability. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165(4), 306-312.

Program Name

Respeto/Proteger

Show Evidence of Effectiveness
Yes
Study Rating and Explanation
Moderate

Random assignment study with high attrition that that did not meet the criteria for a high rating but met all criteria for a moderate rating; findings show a positive, statistically significant impact for at least one behavioral outcome

Program Information

Program Type
Sexual health education
Program Length
Fewer than 10 sessions

Evaluation Setting

Evaluation Setting
After school

Study Sample

Average Age Group
18 or 19
Majority Racial/Ethnic Group
Hispanic or Latinx of any race
Gender
Youth of any gender

Research Design

Assignment Method
Cluster randomized controlled trial
Sample Size

336

Number of Follow-Ups

3

Length of Last Follow-Up

12 months post intervention

Year of Last Data Collection
2005

Study Findings

Result Contraceptive
Conflicting evidence
Reviewed Studies
Moderate-Quality Randomized Trial
Protocol Version
Version 2.0
Details

This study evaluated the program with a randomized controlled trial involving high-risk mothers and fathers recruited from community-based locations in Los Angeles County, California. Couples were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that was offered the program or to a control group that received a 90-minute didactic HIV prevention curriculum. Surveys were administered immediately before the intervention (baseline), immediately after the intervention, and at follow-ups conducted three, six, and 12 months after the program ended.

In one set of longitudinal analyses, the study found that across the baseline, three-month follow-up, and six-month follow-up, the proportion of males and females who reported having had sex without a condom in the past three months declined by a statistically significantly greater amount for the treatment group than for the control group. In a separate set of analyses that incorporated the 12-month follow-up, the study found that while there were favorable treatment effects observed through the 6-month period, there was an unfavorable effect of the intervention by the 12 month period, where there was a statistically significantly higher rate of unprotected sex among the treatment group.

Effect Sizes
{"0": {"ProgramName":"Respeto\/Proteger","StudyID":"PPRER001363","ManuscriptID":"PPRER001363","sid":"185","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Proportion of unprotected sex","OutcomeDomain":"STIs or HIV","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Subgroup--men","FUTimingMonths":"3","FUReference":"After program ended","MeanTreat":"0.676","MeanComp":"0.677","TpperES":"-0.002769","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"},"1": {"ProgramName":"Respeto\/Proteger","StudyID":"PPRER001363","ManuscriptID":"PPRER001363","sid":"185","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Proportion of unprotected sex","OutcomeDomain":"STIs or HIV","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Subgroup--women","FUTimingMonths":"3","FUReference":"After program ended","MeanTreat":"0.593","MeanComp":"0.654","TpperES":"-0.15775","StatSigRepEffect":"Yes","RepEffectFavorable":"Yes","RepEffectMeet":"Yes"},"2": {"ProgramName":"Respeto\/Proteger","StudyID":"PPRER001363","ManuscriptID":"PPRER001363","sid":"185","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Proportion of unprotected sex","OutcomeDomain":"STIs or HIV","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Subgroup--women","FUTimingMonths":"6","FUReference":"After program ended","MeanTreat":"0.521","MeanComp":"0.68","TpperES":"-0.405892","StatSigRepEffect":"Yes","RepEffectFavorable":"Yes","RepEffectMeet":"Yes"},"3": {"ProgramName":"Respeto\/Proteger","StudyID":"PPRER001363","ManuscriptID":"PPRER001363","sid":"185","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Proportion of unprotected sex","OutcomeDomain":"STIs or HIV","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Subgroup--men","FUTimingMonths":"6","FUReference":"After program ended","MeanTreat":"0.645","MeanComp":"0.638","TpperES":"0.018448","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 meets the review standards for credible evidence whenever it is statistically significant with 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.