Study Details

Citation

Guilamo-Ramos, V., Jaccard, J., Dittus, P., Bouris, A., Gonzalez, B., Casillas, E., Banspach, S. (2011). A comparative study of interventions for delaying the initiation of sexual intercourse among Latino and black youth. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43(4), 247-254.

Program or Component Study?
Program
Program or Component Name

Families Talking Together

Show Evidence of Effectiveness
No
Study Rating and Explanation
High

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
After school

Study Sample

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

Research Design

Assignment Method
Randomized controlled trial
Sample Size

2016

Number of Follow-Ups

1

Length of Last Follow-Up

12

Year of Last Data Collection
2009

Study Findings

Result Sexual Activity
Indeterminate evidence
Reviewed Studies
High-Quality Randomized Trial
Protocol Version
Version 3.0
Details

A separate study by the same group of researchers evaluated the effectiveness of Families Talking Together (FTT) relative to another teen pregnancy prevention program, Making a Difference (MAD). The study used a randomized controlled trial involving Latino and African American adolescents from five New York City middle schools. The adolescents and their mothers were randomly assigned to one of three research groups: (1) a group receiving FTT alone, (2) a group receiving MAD alone, or (3) a group receiving both FTT and MAD together. The programs were offered after school and on weekends, outside of regular school hours. Surveys were administered immediately before random assignment (baseline) and 12 months later.

The study found that at the time of the 12-month follow-up survey, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of sexual intercourse between students in the group that received FTT and those in the group that received MAD. The study also examined program impacts on frequency of 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. Program impacts were also examined on measures of mother-adolescent communication, maternal monitoring and supervision, perceived maternal expertise and trustworthiness, satisfaction with mother-adolescent relationship, and social desirability tendencies. Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because they fell outside the scope of the review.

Effect Sizes
{"0": {"ProgramName":"Families Talking Together","StudyID":"PPRER004705","ManuscriptID":"PPRER004705","sid":"53","Rating":"High","OutcomeName":"Ever had intercourse (contrast = FTT vs. MAD)","OutcomeDomain":"Sexual Activity","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Full sample","FUTimingMonths":"12","FUReference":"Baseline","MeanTreat":"0.13","MeanComp":"0.13","TpperES":"-0.033","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"},"1": {"ProgramName":"Families Talking Together","StudyID":"PPRER004705","ManuscriptID":"PPRER004705","sid":"53","Rating":"High","OutcomeName":"Ever had intercourse (contrast = FTT + MAD vs. MAD)","OutcomeDomain":"Sexual Activity","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Full sample","FUTimingMonths":"12","FUReference":"Baseline","MeanTreat":"0.11","MeanComp":"0.13","TpperES":"-0.096","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.