Study Details
Cunningham, M. R., van Zyl, M. A., & Borders, K. W. (2016). Evaluation of Love Notes and reducing the risk in Louisville, Kentucky. Final evaluation report to the University of Louisville Research Foundation, Louisville, KY.
Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., van Zyl, M. A., Antle, B. F., & Langley, C. N. (2016). Impact of two adolescent pregnancy prevention interventions on risky sexual behavior: A three-arm cluster randomized control trial. American Journal of Public Health, 106, S85–S90. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303429
Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., Antle, B. F., & Langley, C. N. (2022). Impact of a relationship‐based intervention, Love Notes, on teen pregnancy prevention. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 72(5), 2569–2588. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12798
Loves Notes (for ages 14-24)
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
933
3
12 months after the end of the intervention.
Study Findings
"The program was evaluated with a cluster randomized control trial involving 23 community-based organizations in Louisville, Kentucky. Youth were recruited into the study on a rolling basis in small groups. Each group was randomly assigned to one of three research conditions: (1) a treatment group receiving the Loves Notes (for ages 14-24) intervention; (2) a treatment group receiving the Reducing the Risk intervention; or (3) a control group receiving a program on neighborhood assets and community change. Data for the study were collected before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and at three, six, 12, and 24 months after the end of the intervention. The manuscripts included in this review focused on data collected at the three-, six-, and 12-month follow-ups.
Six months after the end of the intervention, the study found that adolescents in the Loves Notes (for ages 14-24) group were less likely than those in the control group to report ever having sex (effect size = -0.19), having any sexual activity in the past three months (effect size = -0.18), having sex without a condom in the past three months (effect size = -0.22), having sex without using birth control in the past three months (effect size = -0.28), and ever being pregnant (effect size = -0.17). The study found no statistically significant program impacts on measures of number of sexual partners or pregnancy in the last three months. The study found no statistically significant program impacts on any of these outcomes for the three- or 12-month follow-up surveys.
The study also examined impacts of Loves Notes (for ages 14-24) on negative attitudes about teen pregnancy and the success sequence (the likelihood that youth thought they would order their lives in a conventional way). Findings for these outcomes were not considered for the review because they fell outside the scope of the review. Finally, the study examined impacts of Loves Notes (for ages 14-24) on a measure of pregnancy (or causing a pregnancy) within the first year after the end of the intervention. Findings for that outcome measure were not considered for the review because they did not meet the review evidence standards. Specifically, the review had concerns about sample composition change, and the analyses of that outcome did not meet the TPPER baseline equivalence requirement."
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.
Language directly from the program model developer or authors.