Sexual BehaviorNCT04950686
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
A study testing Media Aware for Young Adults and Health Aware for Young Adults in people with Sexual Behavior and Sexual Assault, run by Innovation Research & Training at 1 site in United States.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 19 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Sexual Behavior, Sexual Assault, Violence, Domestic
- What is being tested?
- Media Aware for Young Adults and Health Aware for Young Adults
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 2,184 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 21 Jul 2021to 24 Mar 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 19 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- 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.
Who cannot join
- -
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
innovation Research and Training
Durham, North Carolina, 27713
About this study
Official title: 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
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.
Read the 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).
- Conditions
- Sexual Behavior, Sexual Assault, Violence, Domestic
- Being tested
- Media Aware for Young Adults, Health Aware for Young Adults
- Medical subject headings
- Sexual Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Media Aware for Young AdultsBehavioural
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.
Health Aware for Young AdultsBehavioural
Media Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program designed for young adults.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Media Aware for Young Adults |
| Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults | Active comparator | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Health Aware for Young Adults |
| Delayed Intervention Control | No intervention | 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. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Relationship Satisfaction
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Relationship Satisfaction
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Relationship Satisfaction
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration
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.]
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration
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.]
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration
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.]
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization
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.]
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization
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.]
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization
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.]
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Used Protection at Last Oral Sex
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
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Percentage of Participants That Used Protection at Last Oral Sex
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
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Used Protection at Last Oral Sex
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
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Frequency of Use of Protection During Oral Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Frequency of Use of Protection During Oral Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Frequency of Use of Protection During Oral Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Frequency of Condom Use During Vaginal Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Frequency of Condom Use During Vaginal Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Frequency of Condom Use During Vaginal Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Frequency of Birth Control Use
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Frequency of Birth Control Use
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Frequency of Birth Control Use
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Used Contraceptive at Last Vaginal Sex
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
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Percentage of Participants That Used Contraceptives at Last Vaginal Sex
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
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Used Contraceptives at Last Vaginal Sex
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
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Frequency of Condom Use During Anal Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Frequency of Condom Use During Anal Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Frequency of Condom Use During Anal Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Used a Condom at Last Anal Sex
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
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Percentage of Participants That Used a Condom at Last Anal Sex
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
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Used a Condom at Last Anal Sex
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
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Secondary outcomes (94)
Perceived Realism of Media Messages
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Perceived Realism of Media Messages
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Perceived Realism of Media Messages
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Perceived Similarity to Media Messages
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Perceived Similarity to Media Messages
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Perceived Similarity to Media Messages
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Identification With Media
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Identification With Media
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Identification With Media
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Media Skepticism
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Media Skepticism
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Media Skepticism
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Gender Role Norms
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Gender Role Norms
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Gender Role Norms
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Rape Myth Acceptance
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Rape Myth Acceptance
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Rape Myth Acceptance
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Intent to Intervene as Bystander
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Intent to Intervene as Bystander
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Intent to Intervene as Bystander
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Sexual Health Knowledge
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Sexual Health Knowledge
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Sexual Health Knowledge
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Contraception/Protection
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Contraception/Protection
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Contraception/Protection
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Communication With Partners and Medical Professionals
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Communication With Partners and Medical Professionals
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Communication With Partners and Medical Professionals
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Descriptive Norms of Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Descriptive Norms of Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Descriptive Norms of Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Descriptive Norms of Risky Sexual Activity
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Descriptive Norms of Risky Sexual Activity
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Descriptive Norms of Risky Sexual Activity
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Sex Refusal Self-efficacy
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Sex Refusal Self-efficacy
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Sex Refusal Self-efficacy
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Refuse Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Self-efficacy to Refuse Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Refuse Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Use a Condom
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Self-efficacy to Use a Condom
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Use a Condom
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Communicate With Partners and Medical Professionals About Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Self-efficacy to Communicate With Partners and Medical Professionals About Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Communicate With Partners and Medical Professionals About Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Risky Sexual Behavior Intentions
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Risky Sexual Behavior Intentions
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Risky Sexual Behavior Intentions
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Intentions to Have Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Intentions to Have Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Intentions to Have Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Intentions to Use a Condom
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Intentions to Use a Condom
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Intentions to Use a Condom
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Intentions to Communicate With Partners and Medical Professionals About Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Intentions to Communicate With Partners and Medical Professionals About Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Intentions to Communicate With Partners and Medical Professionals About Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Willingness to Have Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Willingness to Have Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Willingness to Have Unprotected Sex
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Willingness to Engage in Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Willingness to Engage in Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Willingness to Engage in Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Advertisement Deconstruction Skills
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Injunctive Norms - Most People
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Injunctive Norms - Most People
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Injunctive Norms - Most People
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Injunctive Norms - Friends
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Injunctive Norms - Friends
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Injunctive Norms - Friends
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Descriptive Norms - People Like me
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Descriptive Norms - People Like me
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Descriptive Norms - People Like me
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Frequency of Communication With Sexual Partner
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Frequency of Communication With Sexual Partner
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.
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Frequency of Communication With Sexual Partner
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.
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Communicated With a Doctor
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)
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Percentage of Participants That Communicated With a Doctor
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)
Measured: 6-month follow-up
Percentage of Participants That Communicated With a Doctor
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)
Measured: 12-month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Use a Dental Dam
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.
Measured: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Self-efficacy to Use a Dental Dam
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.
Measured: 6 month follow-up
Self-efficacy to Use a Dental Dam
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.
Measured: 12 month follow-up
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Jul 2021
- Study start21 Jul 2021
- Primary completion24 Mar 2024
- Study completion24 Mar 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Sexual BehaviorStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 2,184 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Innovation Research & Training
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Tracy M Scull, PhD, Principal investigator, innovation Research and Training
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04950686
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CCHealthStudy-R01-20-007
- Other IDs
- R01HD099134
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 3 May 2021
- Last updated
- 14 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Scull TM, Dodson CV, Kupersmidt JB, Evans-Paulson R, Stump KN, Reeder LC. Long-Term Efficacy of a Web-Based Sexual Health Promotion Program Using a Media Literacy Education Approach in a National Sample of Community College Students. Prev Sci. 2026 Aug;27(6):890-902. doi: 10.1007/s11121-026-01930-2. Epub 2026 May 20.
PubMed 42159988
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- 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
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04950686
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CCHealthStudy-R01-20-007
- Conditions
- Sexual Behavior, Sexual Assault, Violence, Domestic
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 2,184 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Innovation Research & TrainingUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Study start
- 21 Jul 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 24 Mar 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 24 Mar 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Jul 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 14 Aug 2025
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults | Experimental | Behavioral: Media Aware for Young AdultsThis 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. |
| Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults | Active comparator | Behavioral: Health Aware for Young AdultsThis 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. |
| Delayed Intervention Control | No intervention | –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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 19 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Media Aware for Young AdultsMedia 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. | Behavioural | Intervention - Media Aware for Young Adults |
| Health Aware for Young AdultsMedia Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program designed for young adults. | Behavioural | Active Control - Health Aware for Young Adults |
Primary outcome
Relationship Satisfaction
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.
Relationship Satisfaction
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.
Relationship Satisfaction
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.
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration
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.]
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration
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.]
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Perpetration
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.]
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization
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.]
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization
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.]
Percentage of Participants With Relationship Violence Victimization
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.]
Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Risky Sexual Behaviors
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.
Percentage of Participants That Used Protection at Last Oral Sex
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
Percentage of Participants That Used Protection at Last Oral Sex
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
Percentage of Participants That Used Protection at Last Oral Sex
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
Frequency of Use of Protection During Oral Sex
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.
Frequency of Use of Protection During Oral Sex
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.
Frequency of Use of Protection During Oral Sex
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.
Frequency of Condom Use During Vaginal Sex
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.
Frequency of Condom Use During Vaginal Sex
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.
Frequency of Condom Use During Vaginal Sex
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.
Frequency of Birth Control Use
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.
Frequency of Birth Control Use
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.
Frequency of Birth Control Use
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.
Percentage of Participants That Used Contraceptive at Last Vaginal Sex
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
Percentage of Participants That Used Contraceptives at Last Vaginal Sex
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
Percentage of Participants That Used Contraceptives at Last Vaginal Sex
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
Frequency of Condom Use During Anal Sex
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.
Frequency of Condom Use During Anal Sex
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.
Frequency of Condom Use During Anal Sex
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.
Percentage of Participants That Used a Condom at Last Anal Sex
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
Percentage of Participants That Used a Condom at Last Anal Sex
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
Percentage of Participants That Used a Condom at Last Anal Sex
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
94 secondary outcomes
Perceived Realism of Media Messages
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Perceived Realism of Media Messages
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Perceived Realism of Media Messages
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Perceived Similarity to Media Messages
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Perceived Similarity to Media Messages
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Perceived Similarity to Media Messages
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Identification With Media
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Identification With Media
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Identification With Media
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Media Skepticism
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Media Skepticism
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Media Skepticism
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Gender Role Norms
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Gender Role Norms
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Gender Role Norms
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Rape Myth Acceptance
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Rape Myth Acceptance
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Rape Myth Acceptance
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Efficacy to Intervene as Bystander
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Intent to Intervene as Bystander
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Intent to Intervene as Bystander
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Intent to Intervene as Bystander
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Sexual Health Knowledge
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Sexual Health Knowledge
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Sexual Health Knowledge
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Risky Sexual Behaviors
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Risky Sexual Behaviors
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Risky Sexual Behaviors
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Unprotected Sex
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Unprotected Sex
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Unprotected Sex
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Contraception/Protection
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Contraception/Protection
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Contraception/Protection
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Communication With Partners and Medical Professionals
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Attitudes Toward Communication With Partners and Medical Professionals
Time frame: 6-month follow-up
Attitudes Toward Communication With Partners and Medical Professionals
Time frame: 12-month follow-up
Descriptive Norms of Unprotected Sex
Time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Aug 2025.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42159988Scull TM, Dodson CV, Kupersmidt JB, Evans-Paulson R, Stump KN, Reeder LC. Long-Term Efficacy of a Web-Based Sexual Health Promotion Program Using a Media Literacy Education Approach in a National Sample of Community College Students. Prev Sci. 2026 Aug;27(6):890-902. doi: 10.1007/s11121-026-01930-2. Epub 2026 May 20.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Sexual Behavior
Not yet recruiting
HealthMpowerment Korea: Pilot Testing the Cultural Adaptation of a Digital HIV Intervention for Men Who Have Sex With Men in South Korea
HIV Infections, HIV Prevention and Care
Recruiting
Rehabilitation and Sex Therapy to Optimize Recovery After Prostate Cancer Treatment
Prostate Cancer, Urinary Incontinence
Recruiting
PRP for Sexual Function
Female Sexual Dysfunction, Sexual Dysfunction
Recruiting
Estimating the Impact of Sexuality Education and Mobile Health Services on Reproductive Health and Empowerment Among Adolescents in Sierra Leone for the Family Planning Impact Lab
Reproductive Health, Sexual Health
Recruiting
Platelet-Rich Plasma for Erectile Dysfunction After Radical Prostatectomy
Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy, Erectile Dysfunction
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Tracy M Scull, PhD principal investigator
innovation Research and Training
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Media Aware for Young Adults and Health Aware for Young Adults in people with Sexual Behavior and Sexual Assault, run by Innovation Research & Training at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Aug 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 14 Aug 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Relationship Satisfaction (time frame: posttest (4-weeks after pretest)). The study lists 33 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04950686, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Aug 2025.