innovation Research and Training
Durham, North Carolina, 27713, United States
NCT Number: NCT04950686
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.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–19 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Durham, North Carolina, 27713, United States
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).
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
-
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.
Media Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program designed for young adults.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Relationship satisfaction will be assessed using 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?") rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; higher scores indicate a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Relationship satisfaction will be assessed using 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?") rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; higher scores indicate a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Relationship satisfaction will be assessed using 7-items (e.g., "How well does your partner meet your needs?") rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (poorly) to 5 (extremely well); higher scores indicate greater relationship satisfaction; range = 1-5; higher scores indicate a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4. [Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.]
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4. [Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.]
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
10-items (e.g., "I spoke to my partner in a hostile or mean tone of voice."); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4. [Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.]
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; [Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.]
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; [Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.]
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
10-items (e.g., "My partner spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice"); Participants were asked to rate how often these things happened with their current or ex-dating partner on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often); higher scores indicate more frequent relationship violence; range = 1-4; [Given lack of variability, this measure was dichotomized so 0 equals no violence and 1 equals any violence.]
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened; higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking. Responses were open-ended so while the lower limit of the range was assumed to be zero, there was no upper limit imposed on participants.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened; higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking. Responses were open-ended so while the lower limit of the range was assumed to be zero, there was no upper limit imposed on participants.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
4-items (e.g., How many times have you had oral, vaginal, or anal sex with a casual partner?); Participants were asked to report how many times each behavior happened; higher scores indicate greater sexual risk taking. Responses were open-ended so while the lower limit of the range was assumed to be zero, there was no upper limit imposed on participants.
Time frame: 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 oral sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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 oral sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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 oral sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had oral sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had oral sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent use of protection; Only participants who indicated they had had oral sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had vaginal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had vaginal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had vaginal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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, Paragard, 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had vaginal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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, Paragard, 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had vaginal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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, Paragard, 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent birth control use; Only participants who indicated they had had vaginal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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 vaginal sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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 vaginal sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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 vaginal sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had anal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had anal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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) and averaged for analyses; higher scores indicate more frequent condom use; Only participants who indicated they had had anal sex responded to these items.
Time frame: 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 anal sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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 anal sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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 anal sex responded to this item
Time frame: 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"; 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, indicating a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; 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, indicating a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
6-items (e.g., "People my age in the media…have sexual contact as often as average people my age"; 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, indicating a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
7-items (e.g., "The things I do in my life are similar to what I see in the media"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater perceived similarity, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
3-items (e.g., "I want to do the things that people my age in the media do"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants identify more with media, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
6-items (e.g., "The media are dishonest about what happens when people drink alcohol"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate participants have more media skepticism, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
6-items (e.g., "Raising children is primarily a woman's responsibility"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate more traditional gender role norms, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater rape myth acceptance, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 0-100. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 0-100. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
5-items (e.g., "I could talk to a friend who I suspected is in an abusive relationship"); participants rate their confidence that they could do the action on a scale from 0-100; higher scores indicate greater bystander efficacy, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 0-100. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); 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 The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"); 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
23-items (e.g., "True or False: You can tell if someone has an STI by looking at him/her"); 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
5-items (e.g., "It is okay to…have sex with someone who has had many sexual partners"); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"); 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"); 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
9-items (e.g., "It is wrong to use birth control"); 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate positive attitudes towards communication, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
5-items (e.g., "I can easily say 'no' to someone who is pressuring me to have sex"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater sex refusal self-efficacy, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
1-item (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a condom, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
1-item (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a condom, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
1-item (e.g., "I can use a condom correctly or explain to my partner how to use a condom correctly"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a condom, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
4-items (e.g., "I can discuss preventing STIs with my partner"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to communicate, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
1-item (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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
1-item (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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
1-item (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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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?";); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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?";); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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?";); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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?"); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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?"); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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?"); 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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 represent the extent to which participants identify the implied message of the advertisement. Range: 0-3. Higher scores indicate a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a less favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
1 item ("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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
1 item ("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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
1 item ("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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 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, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
1 item 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 using condoms and/or other forms of contraception before engaging in sexual activity?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication, which is a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
1 item 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 using condoms and/or other forms of contraception before engaging in sexual activity?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication, which is a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
1 item 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 using condoms and/or other forms of contraception before engaging in sexual activity?"]; items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always); higher scores indicate more frequent communication, which is a more favorable outcome. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
1-item used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex ["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)
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
1-item used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex ["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)
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
1 item used to calculate change in whether participants communicated with a doctor about sex ["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)
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
1-item (e.g., "I can use a dental dam correctly or explain to my partner how to use a dental dam correctly"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 6 month follow-up
1-item (e.g., "I can use a dental dam correctly or explain to my partner how to use a dental dam correctly"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Time frame: 12 month follow-up
1-item (e.g., "I can use a dental dam correctly or explain to my partner how to use a dental dam correctly"); rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam, which is a more favorable outcome; range = 1-4. The overall number of participants analyzed in each Arm/Group includes all participants who completed pretest. Posttest data was imputed for participants that were present at pretest but not at posttest.
Innovation Research & Training
Other
The Community College Health Study: A 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
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06324929
Alcohol Drinking, Alcohol Exposed Pregnancy
Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT04070950
Behavior, Neoplasms
Bordeaux, France
View Trial DetailsNCT03694418
Behavior, Reproductive Behavior
Bozeman, Montana, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07261943
Behavior, Climactericum
Karaman, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial Details