Study Details
Walsh, S., Jenner, E., Qaragholi, N., Henley, C., Demby, H., Leger, R., & Burgess, K. (2022). The Impact of a High School-Based Positive Youth Development Program on Sexual Health Outcomes: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of School Health, 92(12), 1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13216
Jenner, E., Walsh, S., Henley, C., Demby, H., Leger, R., & Falk, G. (2023). Randomized Trial of a Sexual Health Video Intervention for Black and Hispanic Adolescent Females. Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-023-01499-0
Peer Group Connection — High School (PGC-HS)
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
1
Follow-up data collection took place in fall 2017, a year after baseline. Given the length of the intervention, this could have been 3 to 9 months after the end of the intervention
Study Findings
The program was evaluated using a randomized controlled trial involving 9th grade students in 18 high schools in New York City and rural North Carolina. Youth were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the semester- or yearlong Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) program or a control group that received class as usual. Surveys were administered at the beginning of 9th grade before PGC-HS programming was offered (baseline) and at the beginning of 10th grade (follow-up).
The study found that at the follow-up in the beginning of 10th grade, youth participating in the program were significantly less likely to report having ever had vaginal sex (effect size = -0.14). The study found no statistically significant program impacts on the other eligible outcomes examined: sexual initiation, frequency of sex in the past three months, number of sexual partners in the past three months, or vaginal sex without a condom in the past three months.
The study also examined program impacts on measures of decision-making skills, goal-setting skills, perceived connection with peers, and school engagement. 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.