Study of Long-term Efficacy and Mechanisms Underlying the Impact of a Web-based Sexual and Relationship Health Promotion Program With Young Adult Community College Students
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
Community college students are an underserved and at-risk population in terms of their sexual and relationship health. This is a three-arm randomized control trial to evaluate the long-term efficacy of a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program among U.S. community college students (expected N = 2010) and explore the mechanisms underlying the program efficacy.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Detailed Description
Community college students are an underserved and at-risk population in terms of their sexual and relationship health. One promising avenue for improving sexual decision making among this population is media literacy education (MLE). Though studies show MLE is an effective approach to sexual health promotion there is a need to better understand the mechanisms by which MLE programs impact health outcomes. The ultimate goals of this study are to 1) advance theoretical frameworks of media literacy to better understand the underlying mechanisms that lead to sexual health behavior change and 2) enhance the sexual and relationship health of community college students by identifying successful methods of health promotion and strategies to implement health programs at community colleges. This study is a three-arm randomized control trial (RCT) with 2010 community college students (ages 18-19) from 30 colleges across the U.S. All components of this study (i.e., interventions, surveys) are web-based.
Participating students will be randomized to one of three conditions: 1) students who receive a sexual health program grounded in MLE (Media Aware); 2) students who receive a sexual health program with no MLE; and 3) a wait-list control group. Participants will complete pretest, posttest, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up surveys to examine changes across the three groups in our primary outcomes (e.g., risky sexual behavior) and secondary outcomes (e.g., sexual health knowledge, rape myth acceptance, perceived realism of media messages).
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Experimental: Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults This arm will receive Media Aware for Young Adults between the pretest and posttest questionnaire. Media Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program that uses a media literacy education (MLE) approach. The program is self-paced and includes four modules. |
Behavioral: Media Aware for Young Adults
Media Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program designed for young adults that uses a media literacy education (MLE) approach.
|
| Active Comparator: Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults This arm will receive Health Aware for Young Adults in between the pretest and posttest questionnaire. Health Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program. The program contains the same health content as Media Aware for Young Adults but without the media literacy education components. The program is self-paced and includes four modules. |
Behavioral: Health Aware for Young Adults
Media Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program designed for young adults.
|
| No Intervention: Delayed Intervention Control Participants in this condition will not receive a sexual or relationship health promotion program until after the 12-month follow-up survey. After that survey is complete, they will receive access to the Media Aware for Young Adults program. |
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Relationship satisfaction [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?"; Hendrick, 1988); rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship satisfaction [6-month follow-up]
7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?"; Hendrick, 1988); rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship satisfaction [12-month follow-up]
7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?"; Hendrick, 1988); rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship violence perpetration [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship violence perpetration [6-month follow-up]
10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship violence perpetration [12-month follow-up]
10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship violence victimization [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship violence victimization [6-month follow-up]
10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Relationship violence victimization [12-month follow-up]
10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"; adapted from Wolfe et al., 2001); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship responded to these items.
- Identity abuse [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
7-items (e.g., "My partner threatened to tell my employer, family, or others about my sexual orientation or gender identity"; Woulfe & Goodman, 2018); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times); higher scores indicate more frequent identity abuse; range = 0-7; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship AND they were not heterosexual responded to these items.
- Identity abuse [6-month follow-up]
7-items (e.g., "My partner threatened to tell my employer, family, or others about my sexual orientation or gender identity"; Woulfe & Goodman, 2018); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times); higher scores indicate more frequent identity abuse; range = 0-7; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship AND they were not heterosexual responded to these items.
- Identity abuse [12-month follow-up]
7-items (e.g., "My partner threatened to tell my employer, family, or others about my sexual orientation or gender identity"; Woulfe & Goodman, 2018); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times); higher scores indicate more frequent identity abuse; range = 0-7; Only participants who indicated they were currently in a relationship AND they were not heterosexual responded to these items.
- Risky sexual behaviors [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
5-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?; Turchik, 2007); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month); higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Risky sexual behaviors [6-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?; Turchik, 2007); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month); higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Risky sexual behaviors [12-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?; Turchik, 2007); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened in the last 6 months (and at pretest and 4-week posttest, in the last month); higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Use of protection at last oral sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ("Did you use a condom and/or dental dam the last time you had oral sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Use of protection at last oral sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item ("Did you use a condom and/or dental dam the last time you had oral sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Use of protection at last oral sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item ("Did you use a condom and/or dental dam the last time you had oral sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Frequency of use of protection during oral sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of use of protection during oral sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom or dental dam when having oral sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of use of protection during oral sex [6-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of use of protection during oral sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom or dental dam when having oral sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of use of protection during oral sex [12-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of use of protection during oral sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom or dental dam when having oral sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having vaginal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [6-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having vaginal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [12-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during vaginal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having vaginal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of birth control use [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of birth control use [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use one of the following forms of birth control? Birth control pills, The Shot (DepoProvera), The Patch, The Ring (Nuvaring), IUD (Mirena, Paraguard, Skyla), The Implant (Implanon, Nexplanon), or other FDA approved methods."]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of birth control use [6-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of birth control use [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use one of the following forms of birth control? Birth control pills, The Shot (DepoProvera), The Patch, The Ring (Nuvaring), IUD (Mirena, Paraguard, Skyla), The Implant (Implanon, Nexplanon), or other FDA approved methods."]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of birth control use [12-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of birth control use [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use one of the following forms of birth control? Birth control pills, The Shot (DepoProvera), The Patch, The Ring (Nuvaring), IUD (Mirena, Paraguard, Skyla), The Implant (Implanon, Nexplanon), or other FDA approved methods."]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Contraceptive use at last vaginal sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ("Did you use any contraceptive method the last time you had vaginal sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Contraceptive use at last vaginal sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item ("Did you use any contraceptive method the last time you had vaginal sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Contraceptive use at last vaginal sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item ("Did you use any contraceptive method the last time you had vaginal sex?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Frequency of condom use during anal sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during anal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having anal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of condom use during anal sex [6-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during anal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having anal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of condom use during anal sex [12-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in frequency of condom use during anal sex [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you or your partner(s) use a condom when having anal sex?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Condom use at last anal sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ("Did you use a condom during your last anal intercourse?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Condom use at last anal sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item ("Did you use a condom during your last anal intercourse?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
- Condom use at last anal sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item ("Did you use a condom during your last anal intercourse?"); participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0); Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to this item
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Perceived media message completeness [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ("How complete is the information in this advertisement?"; Scull et al., 2019); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (incomplete) to 4 (complete); higher scores indicate less critical media analysis; range = 1-4
- Perceived media message completeness [6-month follow-up]
1-item ("How complete is the information in this advertisement?"; Scull et al., 2019); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (incomplete) to 4 (complete); higher scores indicate less critical media analysis; range = 1-4
- Perceived media message completeness [12-month follow-up]
1-item ("How complete is the information in this advertisement?"; Scull et al., 2019); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (incomplete) to 4 (complete); higher scores indicate less critical media analysis; range = 1-4
- Cognitive elaboration of advertisement [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items (e.g., "How much time did you spend thinking about this advertisement?"; adapted from Shiv, Edell Britton, & Payne, 2004); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not much at all) to 4 (a lot); higher scores indicate more cognitive elaboration; range = 1-4
- Cognitive elaboration of advertisement [6-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "How much time did you spend thinking about this advertisement?"; adapted from Shiv, Edell Britton, & Payne, 2004); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not much at all) to 4 (a lot); higher scores indicate more cognitive elaboration; range = 1-4
- Cognitive elaboration of advertisement [12-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "How much time did you spend thinking about this advertisement?"; adapted from Shiv, Edell Britton, & Payne, 2004); Participants view an advertisement and then answer questions about the advertisement on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not much at all) to 4 (a lot); higher scores indicate more cognitive elaboration; range = 1-4
- Perceived realism of media messages [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants think media is more realistic; range = 1-4
- Perceived realism of media messages [6-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants think media is more realistic; range = 1-4
- Perceived realism of media messages [12-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants think media is more realistic; range = 1-4
- Perceived similarity to media messages [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity; range = 1-4
- Perceived similarity to media messages [6-month follow-up]
7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity; range = 1-4
- Perceived similarity to media messages [12-month follow-up]
7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity; range = 1-4
- Identification with media [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media; range = 1-4
- Identification with media [6-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media; range = 1-4
- Identification with media [12-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"; adapted from Austin and Johnson, 1997); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media; range = 1-4
- Media skepticism [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"; Scull et al., 2014, 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism; range = 1-4
- Media skepticism [6-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"; Scull et al., 2014, 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism; range = 1-4
- Media skepticism [12-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"; Scull et al., 2014, 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism; range = 1-4
- Dating violence norms [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
4-items (e.g., "It is OK for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends/partners if they did something to make them mad"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate worse dating violence norms; range = 1-4
- Dating violence norms [6-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "It is OK for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends/partners if they did something to make them mad"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate worse dating violence norms; range = 1-4
- Dating violence norms [12-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "It is OK for people to hit their girlfriends/boyfriends/partners if they did something to make them mad"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate worse dating violence norms; range = 1-4
- Gender role norms [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms; range = 1-4
- Gender role norms [6-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms; range = 1-4
- Gender role norms [12-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"; adapted from Foshee et al., 2005); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms; range = 1-4
- Rape myth acceptance [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
13-items (e.g., "If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand"; McMahon & Farmer, 2011); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance; range = 1-4
- Rape myth acceptance [6-month follow-up]
13-items (e.g., "If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand"; McMahon & Farmer, 2011); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance; range = 1-4
- Rape myth acceptance [12-month follow-up]
13-items (e.g., "If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand"; McMahon & Farmer, 2011); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance; range = 1-4
- Efficacy to intervene as bystander [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"; Banyard et al., 2005); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy; range = 0-100
- Efficacy to intervene as bystander [6-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"; Banyard et al., 2005); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy; range = 0-100
- Efficacy to intervene as bystander [12-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"; Banyard et al., 2005); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy; range = 0-100
- Intent to intervene as bystander [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
4-items (e.g., "Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help"; Banyard, 2008); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to intervene as a bystander; range = 1-4
- Intent to intervene as bystander [6-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help"; Banyard, 2008); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to intervene as a bystander; range = 1-4
- Intent to intervene as bystander [12-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "Approach a friend if I thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them know that I am here to help"; Banyard, 2008); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to intervene as a bystander; range = 1-4
- Sexual health knowledge [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"; Scull et al., 2018); For each item, participants who answer correctly will receive a "1" and participants who answer incorrectly will receive a "0"; items will be summed; higher scores indicate greater sexual health knowledge; range = 0-23
- Sexual health knowledge [6-month follow-up]
23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"; Scull et al., 2018); For each item, participants who answer correctly will receive a "1" and participants who answer incorrectly will receive a "0"; items will be summed; higher scores indicate greater sexual health knowledge; range = 0-23
- Sexual health knowledge [12-month follow-up]
23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"; Scull et al., 2018); For each item, participants who answer correctly will receive a "1" and participants who answer incorrectly will receive a "0"; items will be summed; higher scores indicate greater sexual health knowledge; range = 0-23
- Attitudes toward risky sexual behaviors [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward risky sexual behaviors [6-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward risky sexual behaviors [12-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward unprotected sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ["It is okay to…have unprotected sex (not including when people are trying to get pregnant)"]; rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward unprotected sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item ["It is okay to…have unprotected sex (not including when people are trying to get pregnant)"]; rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward unprotected sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item ["It is okay to…have unprotected sex (not including when people are trying to get pregnant)"]; rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward contraception/protection [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes towards contraception; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward contraception/protection [6-month follow-up]
9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes towards contraception; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward contraception/protection [12-month follow-up]
9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"; adapted from Turchik & Garske, 2009); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes towards contraception; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward communication with partners and medical professionals [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
4-items (e.g., "Before deciding to have sex, people should…talk with their partner about HIV/AIDS and other STIs"; Scull et al., 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward communication with partners and medical professionals [6-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "Before deciding to have sex, people should…talk with their partner about HIV/AIDS and other STIs"; Scull et al., 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication; range = 1-4
- Attitudes toward communication with partners and medical professionals [12-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "Before deciding to have sex, people should…talk with their partner about HIV/AIDS and other STIs"; Scull et al., 2018); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication; range = 1-4
- Descriptive norms of unprotected sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item (e.g., "What percentage of people your age have had unprotected sex?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in the behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in unprotected sex; range = 0-100
- Descriptive norms of unprotected sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item (e.g., "What percentage of people your age have had unprotected sex?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in the behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in unprotected sex; range = 0-100
- Descriptive norms of unprotected sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item (e.g., "What percentage of people your age have had unprotected sex?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in the behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in unprotected sex; range = 0-100
- Descriptive norms of risky sexual activity [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
5-items (e.g., "What percentage of people your age…have had oral, anal, or vaginal sex with someone who has not been tested for STIs or whose STI status is unknown?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in each behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in risky contraception use/protection practices; range = 0-100
- Descriptive norms of risky sexual activity [6-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "What percentage of people your age…have had oral, anal, or vaginal sex with someone who has not been tested for STIs or whose STI status is unknown?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in each behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in risky contraception use/protection practices; range = 0-100
- Descriptive norms of risky sexual activity [12-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "What percentage of people your age…have had oral, anal, or vaginal sex with someone who has not been tested for STIs or whose STI status is unknown?"); participants write in their estimate of what percentage of their peers are engaging in each behavior; higher scores indicate participants think more of their peers are engaging in risky contraception use/protection practices; range = 0-100
- Sex refusal self-efficacy [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy; range = 1-4
- Sex refusal self-efficacy [6-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy; range = 1-4
- Sex refusal self-efficacy [12-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ("I can easily say 'no' to sex if we do not have protection even if I really want to have sex with that person"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item ("I can easily say 'no' to sex if we do not have protection even if I really want to have sex with that person"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item ("I can easily say 'no' to sex if we do not have protection even if I really want to have sex with that person"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to refuse unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to use protection [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
2-items (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use protection; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to use protection [6-month follow-up]
2-items (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use protection; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to use protection [12-month follow-up]
2-items (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use protection; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex [6-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate; range = 1-4
- Self-efficacy to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex [12-month follow-up]
4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"; Soet, Dudley, & Dilorio, 1999); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate; range = 1-4
- Risky sexual behavior intentions [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
5-items (e.g., "In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with a casual partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Risky sexual behavior intentions [6-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with a casual partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Risky sexual behavior intentions [12-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will have oral, anal, or vaginal sex with a casual partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Intentions to have unprotected sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ("In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will…have unprotected sex?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Intentions to have unprotected sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item ("In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will…have unprotected sex?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Intentions to have unprotected sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item ("In the next 6 months, how likely is it that you will…have unprotected sex?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Intentions to use protection/contraception [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to have sexual intercourse in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…use a condom?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to use protection/contraception; range = 1-4
- Intentions to use protection/contraception [6-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to have sexual intercourse in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…use a condom?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to use protection/contraception; range = 1-4
- Intentions to use protection/contraception [12-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to have sexual intercourse in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…use a condom?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to use protection/contraception; range = 1-4
- Intentions to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
6-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to engage in sexual activity with a new partner in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…talk with a partner about HIV/AIDS or other STIs?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to communicate; range = 1-4
- Intentions to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex [6-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to engage in sexual activity with a new partner in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…talk with a partner about HIV/AIDS or other STIs?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to communicate; range = 1-4
- Intentions to communicate with partners and medical professionals about sex [12-month follow-up]
6-items (e.g., "If you were to decide to engage in sexual activity with a new partner in the next 6 months, how likely would you be to…talk with a partner about HIV/AIDS or other STIs?"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 4 (extremely likely); higher scores indicate greater intentions to communicate; range = 1-4
- Willingness to have unprotected sex [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item (e.g., "Suppose you were with your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. He/she wants to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Willingness to have unprotected sex [6-month follow-up]
1-item (e.g., "Suppose you were with your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. He/she wants to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Willingness to have unprotected sex [12-month follow-up]
1-item (e.g., "Suppose you were with your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. He/she wants to have sex, but neither of you have any form of protection. In this situation, how willing would you be to go ahead and have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to have unprotected sex; range = 1-4
- Willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
5-items (e.g., "Suppose you wanted to have sex with someone but you did not know their STI status. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors [6-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "Suppose you wanted to have sex with someone but you did not know their STI status. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors [12-month follow-up]
5-items (e.g., "Suppose you wanted to have sex with someone but you did not know their STI status. In this situation, how willing would you be to have sex anyway?"; adapted from Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very unwilling) to 4 (very willing); higher scores indicate greater willingness to engage in risky sexual behaviors; range = 1-4
- Advertisement deconstruction skills [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012)
- Advertisement deconstruction skills [6-month follow-up]
Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012)
- Advertisement deconstruction skills [12-month follow-up]
Participants are shown an advertisement and asked to describe it in detail including noting marketing strategies and any missing information (e.g., How are advertisers trying to get someone to buy this product?). Qualitative responses to the questions are coded by trained project staff members once inter-coder reliability is established, and scores will be summed to create an overall deconstruction skills composite variable. (adapted from Kupersmidt, Scull, & Benson, 2012)
- Injunctive norms - most people [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items (e.g., "Most people believe that it is okay for people my age to have unprotected sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate riskier injunctive norms; range = 1-4
- Injunctive norms - most people [6-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "Most people believe that it is okay for people my age to have unprotected sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate riskier injunctive norms; range = 1-4
- Injunctive norms - most people [12-month follow-up]
3-items (e.g., "Most people believe that it is okay for people my age to have unprotected sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate riskier injunctive norms; range = 1-4
- Injunctive norms - friends [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
2-items (e.g., "My friends think I should use protection when I have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky injunctive norms; range = 1-4
- Injunctive norms - friends [6-month follow-up]
2-items (e.g., "My friends think I should use protection when I have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky injunctive norms; range = 1-4
- Injunctive norms - friends [12-month follow-up]
2-items (e.g., "My friends think I should use protection when I have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky injunctive norms; range = 1-4
- Descriptive norms - people like me [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
1-item ("Most people like me use protection when they have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky descriptive norms; range = 1-4
- Descriptive norms - people like me [6-month follow-up]
1-item ("Most people like me use protection when they have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky descriptive norms; range = 1-4
- Descriptive norms - people like me [12-month follow-up]
1-item ("Most people like me use protection when they have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores less risky descriptive norms; range = 1-4
- Frequency of communication with sexual partner [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
6-items used to calculate change in frequency of sexual communication with a partner(s) [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you talk to your partner(s) about…sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of communication with sexual partner [6-month follow-up]
6-items used to calculate change in frequency of sexual communication with a partner(s) [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you talk to your partner(s) about…sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of communication with sexual partner [12-month follow-up]
6-items used to calculate change in frequency of sexual communication with a partner(s) [e.g., "In the past month, how often did you talk to your partner(s) about…sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication; Only participants who indicated they had had sex responded to these items.
- Frequency of communication with doctor [posttest (4-weeks after pretest)]
3-items used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex [e.g., "In the past month, had you talked to a doctor or other medical professional about sex, contraception, and/or relationships?"]; participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0)
- Frequency of communication with doctor [6-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex [e.g., "In the past month, had you talked to a doctor or other medical professional about sex, contraception, and/or relationships?"]; participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0)
- Frequency of communication with doctor [12-month follow-up]
3-items used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex [e.g., "In the past month, had you talked to a doctor or other medical professional about sex, contraception, and/or relationships?"]; participants answered "yes" (1) or "no" (0)
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Students must be 18 or 19 years of age.
-
Students must attend one of the community colleges from which this study is recruiting participants.
-
Students must have an email address to receive study communication.
-
Students must have access to a computer, tablet, or phone device with internet access as the questionnaires and programs are web-based.
-
Students must be able to speak and read English because the study materials (e.g., questionnaires, programs) are in English.
Exclusion Criteria:
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | innovation Research and Training | Durham | North Carolina | United States | 27713 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- Innovation Research & Training
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Tracy M Scull, PhD, innovation Research and Training
Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
None provided.- CCHealthStudy-R01-20-007
- R01HD099134