Study Details
Rotz, D., Shiferaw, M., Wood, R.G. (2022). The impact of a home visiting program enhanced to address repeat adolescent pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial of Steps to Success. Maternal Child Health Journal, 1–11.
Rotz, D., Shiferaw, M., Wood, R.G. (2019). Enhancing a home visiting program to address repeat adolescent pregnancy: The longer-term impacts of Steps to Success. Mathematic Policy Research.
Rotz, D., Wood, R.G. (2018). Enhancing a home visiting program to address repeat adolescent pregnancy: The early impacts of Steps to Success. Mathematica Policy Research.
Kisker, E.E., Berman, J., Blasberg, A., Wood, R.G. (2016). Preventing rapid repeat births among adolescent mothers: Implementing Steps to Success in San Angelo, Texas. Mathematica Policy Research.
Steps 2 Success
Program Information
Evaluation Setting
Study Sample
Research Design
594
2
at program completion - 24 months
Study Findings
The Steps to Success program was evaluated using a randomized controlled trial involving pregnant or recently pregnant young women ages 14-20 recruited from hospitals, high schools, a nonprofit, and a health care provider from San Angelo, Texas. Participants were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that received the two-year Steps to Success home visiting program or a control group that received a two-year traditional home visiting program. Surveys were administered at enrollment, before random assignment (baseline); one year after the start of the program; and at the conclusion of the two-year program. Twelve and 24 months after the start of the program, the study found no statistically significant impacts on having a repeat pregnancy and having unprotected sex in the last three months among those receiving Steps to Success. The study also examined the program's impacts on measures of using a long-acting reversible contraceptive, desire to avoid a repeat pregnancy in the next year, knowledge of contraception and pregnancy prevention, quality of co-parenting relationship, and father's engagement with the child. 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.
Language directly from the program model developer or authors.