Study Details
Guilamo-Ramos, V., Benzekri, A., Thimm-Kaiser, M., Dittus, P., Ruiz, Y., Cleland, C. M., McCoy, W. (2020). A triadic intervention for adolescent sexual health: A randomized clinical trial. em Pediatrics /em, 145(5).
Families Talking Together
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
900
1
Twelve month post-baseline
Study Findings
This study used a randomized controlled trial involving Hispanic or African American youth ages 11–14. Mothers and their children were recruited as dyads from a pediatric clinic in the New York City area. Dyads were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the Families Talking Together program or to a control group that did not receive any program. During the 45–60-minute single-session program, health care providers discussed sexual risks for teenagers and the importance of good parent-adolescent communication on these topics. In addition, parents were given program materials and encouraged to use them to talk to their children about the program's content. This was followed by one phone call at one-month post-program to check in with the parents and encourage them once more to talk to their children. Data from parents and children were collected immediately before the program (baseline), and three months and 12 months after study enrollment. The study found that 12 months after enrolling in the study, teenagers who participated in the program were significantly less likely to report having had vaginal sex (effect size = -0.84) and having had their sexual debut in the past 12 months (effect size = -0.76). The study also examined program impacts on the children's knowledge about healthy relationships and dating; their self-esteem; attitudes and knowledge about leadership; healthy life skills; knowledge about the process of career and decision making; knowledge about career readiness, college readiness, sexual risk, and condom use; confidence in
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.