Study Details
Covington, R.D., Goesling, B., Clark Tuttle, C., Crofton, M., Manlove, J., Oman, R.F., Vesely, S. (2016). Final impacts of the POWER Through Choices program. Mathematica Policy Research.
Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., Green, J., Clements-Nolle, K., Lu, M. (2018). Adolescent pregnancy prevention among youths living in group care homes: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 108(S1), pp. S38-S44.
Oman, R.F., Vesely, S.K., Green, J., Fluhr, J., Williams, J. (2016). Short-term impact of a teen pregnancy-prevention intervention implemented in group homes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59, 584–591.
Power Through Choices
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
885
3
12
Study Findings
The program was evaluated in a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 885 youth recruited from 44 residential group homes in California, Maryland, and Oklahoma. The study randomly assigned clusters of youth to a treatment group receiving the 10 sessions of the POWER Through Choices program or to a control group that did not receive the program but had access to other community and group home services. Data for the study were collected before the program (baseline), immediately after the program, and six and 12 months after the end of the program. This study focused on data collected at the six- and 12-month follow-ups.
Six months after the program ended, youth who participated in the program were significantly less likely than youth in the control group to report having had sex without using birth control in the past three months (odds ratio = 0.72 (confidence interval = 0.52 to 0.98); TPPER-calculated effect size = -0.141). The study found that at the six-month follow-up, there were no statistically significant impacts on whether youth had ever been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant.
Twelve months after the program ended, youth who participated in the program were significantly less likely to report ever having been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant than youth in the control group (odds ratio = 0.81 (confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.88); TPPER-calculated effect size = -0.124). In addition, the study found that 12 months after the end of the program, the subgroup of female youth who participated in the program were significantly less likely to report ever being pregnant than their counterparts in the control group (odds ratio = 0.66, confidence interval = 0.56 to 0.77); TPPER-calculated effect size = -0.255). At the 12-month follow-up, there were no statistically significant impacts on measures of recent (in the last three months) sexual activity (number of sexual partners, condom and birth control use during recent sexual activity, and being tested and diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the past 12 months.
The study also examined program impacts on measures of knowledge about reproductive anatomy and fertility, HIV and STIs, and methods of protection; attitudes toward safe sex and the use of protection; perceived self-efficacy to avoid unprotected sex; perceived ability to find methods of protection; perceived access to condoms and birth control; and intention to have sex, use a condom, and use birth control in the next year. 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.