Study Details
Language on this page comes directly from the program model developer or authors. It does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or any federal agency.
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.