Study Details

Citation

Goesling, Brian, Silvie Collman, Mindy Scott, and Elizabeth Cook. Impacts of an Enhanced Family Health and Sexuality Module of the HealthTeacher Middle School Curriculum. Final Report. Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ: May 2014.

Goesling, B., Scott, M. E., Cook, E. (2016). Impacts of an enhanced family health and sexuality module of the HealthTeacher middle school curriculum: A cluster randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 106, S125-S131. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303392

Program or Component Study?
Program
Program or Component Name

HealthTeacher

Show Evidence of Effectiveness
No
Study Rating and Explanation
Moderate —

Random assignment study with high attrition that that did not meet the criteria for a high rating but met all criteria for a moderate rating; findings show no positive, statistically significant impact on a relevant behavioral outcome measure for either the full sample or key subgroups

Program Information

Program Type
Sexual health education
Program Length
10 to 20 sessions

Evaluation Setting

Evaluation Setting
In school: Middle school

Study Sample

Average Age Group
13 or younger
Majority Racial/Ethnic Group
Hispanic or Latino
Sex
Male and female youth

Research Design

Assignment Method
Cluster randomized controlled trial
Sample Size

1189

Number of Follow-Ups

2

Length of Last Follow-Up

12

Year of Last Data Collection
2012

Study Findings

Result Sexual Activity
Indeterminate evidence
Reviewed Studies
Moderate-Quality Randomized Trial
Protocol Version
Version 5.0
Details

This study evaluated the program using a cluster randomized controlled trial in Chicago public schools. Seventeen high schools were grouped into matched pairs prior to random assignment. Within each matched pair, one school was randomly assigned to the intervention. Schools in the intervention group received an enhanced version of Family Health and Sexuality module of the HealthTeacher middle school curriculum. Schools assigned to the control group did not receive the intervention. Data were collected before the intervention (baseline), 12 months after baseline (first follow-up), and 6 months after the first follow-up (second follow-up).

At the time of the first follow-up, the study found no statistically significant impacts on ever having sexual intercourse or oral sex.

Effect Sizes
{"0": {"ProgramName":"HealthTeacher","StudyID":"PPRER014022","ManuscriptID":"PPRER014022","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Ever had oral sex","OutcomeDomain":"Sexual Activity","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Full sample","FUTimingMonths":"6","FUReference":"End of Program","MeanTreat":"0.12","MeanComp":"0.09","TpperES":"0.195","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"},"1": {"ProgramName":"HealthTeacher","StudyID":"PPRER014022","ManuscriptID":"PPRER014022","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Ever had sexual intercourse","OutcomeDomain":"Sexual Activity","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Full sample","FUTimingMonths":"6","FUReference":"End of Program","MeanTreat":"0.12","MeanComp":"0.12","TpperES":"0.000","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"},"2": {"ProgramName":"HealthTeacher","StudyID":"PPRER014022","ManuscriptID":"PPRER014022","Rating":"Moderate","OutcomeName":"Ever had sexual intercourse or oral sex","OutcomeDomain":"Sexual Activity","OutcomeDichotomous":"Yes","SampleType":"Full sample","FUTimingMonths":"6","FUReference":"End of Program","MeanTreat":"0.14","MeanComp":"0.14","TpperES":"0.000","StatSigRepEffect":"No","RepEffectFavorable":"Not significant","RepEffectMeet":"No"}}

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.